TDS return filed beyond time cannot be declared as non est in law and that the CIT(A) does not have powers of enhancement in an appeal against an order under section 200A. The CIT(A) cannot travel beyond the subject-matter of the appeal, which was as to whether fee under section 234E can be levied or not; and not the question, whether the return of TDS filed by the assessee was non est in law? The CIT(A) had no power in the appeal in the present case to declare return of TDS filed by the assessee as non est in law.
Aramark India Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) case discusses the disallowance of depreciation on goodwill, citing non-existing asset and lack of enduring benefit.
No enquiries were conducted by the AO/learned CIT(A) even during appellate/remand proceedings . The books of accounts were not rejected by authorities below nor any defect is pointed out by the AO/learned CIT(A) in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. There is no allegation by Revenue that the assessee claimed any bogus expenses or any attempt is made to defraud Revenue. Under these circumstances keeping in view factual matrix of the case, we are of the considered view that aforesaid adhoc disallowance of expenses under various heads of expenses to the tune of 10% of the total expenses incurred by the assessee under these heads of expenses is not warranted
The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by AO u/s 68 by considering the share application money received by assessee as unexplained cash credit is justified in law?
Penalty U/s. 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is leviable for failure to get accounts audited where the turnover / gross receipts exceeds the prescribed limit. Many times it happens that the turnover as per the regular books of accounts remains under the prescribed limit and as such the assessee do not gets the accounts audited U/s. 44AB.
Assessee had filed appeal in manual form and such appeal had been filed within prescribed time under the Act, merely because assessee had not filed appeal in electronic form, assessee’s appeal could not be dismissed on technical grounds that too during transition period prescribed by CBDT.
Concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee has to be in the income tax return filed by it. Even if some discrepancies were found during the survey resulting in surrender of income by the assessee, once the assessee has declared the said income in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act, then the penalty cannot be levied on the surmises, conjectures and possibilities that the assessee would not have disclosed the income but for survey.
M/s. Bhardwaj Construction Co. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) As regards to Ground Nos. 11 and 12, relating to disallowance on account of depreciation claimed at Rs. 33,726/- on Cars, the Ld. AR submitted that this disallowance is without any basis. The Ld. AR further submitted that the vehicles have been used for business purposes and […]
Disallowance of deduction under section 35(2)(AB) on the ground of non approval of expenditure claimed by the DSIR was allowable as prior to the amendment, i.e., upto 30.06.2016, the pre-requisite for allow ability of deduction was approval for Units and not approval for the quantum of expenditure. Moreover, AO disallowed the claim without due application of mind.
Rajendra Shringi Vs DCIT (ITAT Jaipur) The issue under consideration is whether the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) is justified in law? ITAT states that no doubt, the discrepancies were found during the survey. This has yielded income from the assessee in the form of amount surrendered by the assessee. Presently, ITAT are not concerned […]
