Coming to the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the said section also provides that any interest, royalty, fees for technical services or other sum chargeable under this Act on which tax is deductible at source under chapter XVII-B and such tax has not been deducted or after deduction has not been paid on or before the due date specified in section 139(1) of the Act. We therefore find that both the provisions of section 195(1) as well as 40(a)(ia) of the Act talks about deduction of tax at source where the sum is chargeable under this Act.
We noted that in the very first year i.e. AY 2011-12, the depreciation has already allowed the claim of depreciation. We noted that in the income tax code, there is a provision/ concept of block of asset and once any asset enters into block asset and claim of depreciation in very first year is allowed, in subsequent year the deprecation cannot be disallowed in case the first year is not
M/s. Neelkanth Plywood Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Delhi) A perusal of the reasons for reopening of the case for the impugned assessment year, copy of which is placed at paper book page No. 20-21 shows that the reopening was made on the basis of the report of the investigation wing and there […]
There is nothing in section 40(a)(ia) to treat assessee as a defaulter where there is shortfall in deduction of TDS and if the shortfall is due to any difference of opinion as to taxability of any item or the nature of payment falling under various TDS provisions, the assessee can only be declared to be an assessee-in-default under section 201 and no disallowance could be made.
B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) In absence of adverse material found during search, no addition could be made merely on the basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) of Income Tax Act, 1961 which did not constitute conclusive evidence and having been given under pressure was immediately retracted. Additions made u/s 153A […]
णonduct of the assessee in changing stand at different level and claiming lesser agricultural income before the authorities below would clearly show that authorities below were very reasonable in estimating the agricultural income at Rs.14 lacs, though the assessee claimed lesser amount of the same subsequently. Therefore, authorities below were justified in considering Rs.10,78,544/- as income from other sources.
Nishi Kapoor Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) The Assessing Officer who has valid jurisdiction over the case of the assessee shall record reasons u/s 148(2) for reassessment proceedings, otherwise issue of notice u/s 148 is not valid. Reopening notice invalid If the officer who had issued the notice under section 148 of the Act, was different […]
Interest income derived by assessee, co-operative society from its investments held with a co-operative bank, was entitled for claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) as for the purposes of section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, Cooperative Bank Ltd shall be treated as a co-operative society.
Rajendra Aggarwal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by accepting the return of income filed by the assessee which included surrendered amount of Rs. 51,64,100/-. In fact in the Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer added another sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- as unexplained cash found at […]
ACIT Vs SMC Power Generation Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) ITAT held that assessment was earlier completed u/s 143(3) wherein the share capital had been scrutinized and accepted by the revenue, holding the same share capital as unexplained in the present reassessment u/s 153A tantamounts to change of opinion not backed by any evidence and, therefore, not […]
