Since the transaction between assessee-company and other group concern were in the nature of current account and inter banking account containing both types of entries i.e., receipts and payments and assessee was neither the beneficial nor the registered shareholder of the company, therefore, the amount received from other group concern could not be brought in the purview of loans and advances so as to attract Section 2(22)(e).
Since both the employee’s and employer’s contribution to Provident Fund was covered under the amended provision of section 43B, therefore Employees contribution to Provident fund (EPF), beyond the due date stipulated under the Provident Fund Act but before the due date of filing return of income under section 139(1) could not be disallowed by invoking section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITAT Delhi rules on the treatment of surrendered sales outside books, stating only profit is taxable, not the entire sales. Full judgment details.”
Kay Dee Industries Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi) Since it was not the first year of the payment of commission to the party and the recipient of the commission income was also not related party in terms of section 40A(2), therefore, revenue was only authorized to see whether the expenditure was laid out or by the […]
Payment to the film distributors is not subject to TDS and therefore disallowing expense by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) is not justified
Shri Shantilal B. Parekh Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) BOGUS PURCHASES – On the basis of information, huge racket of hawala dealers involved in issuing bogus invoices to allow the traders to claim tax credit was discovered. Assessee was alleged to be one of the beneficiary to who dealt with certain parties engaged in hawala racket. […]
Payment made by assessee to SEBI under consent order was an allowable business expenditure under section 37(1) and the same was not in the nature of the penalty for infraction of the law.
Where AO was satisfied from the valuation report of the Registered Valuer (approved by the Govt.) for the valuation of property furnished by assessee, he was not mandatory required to refer the matter for valuation of property to DVO.
Sh. Naresh Kumar Anand HUF Vs Pr. CIT (ITAT Jalandhar) Facts: Notice u/s 148 was issued on 09.02.2009 on the point that M/s. L&T paid an amount of INR 14 Lakhs to the assessee as lease rent for land which was declared by the assessee in its return under the head ‘Income from House Property’ […]
No disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) could be made for non deduction of TDS on bank commission / guarantee fee as CBDT vide Circular No. 56/2012 had clarified that no TDS was required to be deducted on bank guarantee commission, etc. and the same was retrospective applicable.
