In ACIT Vs. M/s. Nokia Siemens Networks (P) Ltd, the Delhi ITAT held that assessee cannot be treated as Assessee- in- Default for Late payment of TDS due to system and connectivity issues at the bankers’ end.
The facts about the Bank Accounts and other circumstances are in the exclusive knowledge of the assessee and non co-operation leads to derailment of It is the duty of every assessee to duly respond to statutory notices failing which the law provides imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- each default. In this case, assesse’s non- compliance of statutory notice is for more than 3 times in each A. Y.
Assessee was a non-employee director and share holder in the company and no salary or director’s fees was paid to her by the company during the year under consideration.
Amount of TDS was debited from the bank account of the assessee on the due date i.e. 7.10.2009 and the delay in deposit of such tax by a day was on account of system and connectivity issues at the bankers’ end, which were beyond the control of the assessee.
Assessing Officer to examine from the original bank documentations/ agreements/ sanction letter and to ascertain whether the requirement of non-payment of commission to the guarantors was incorporated in the terms and conditions of bank for sanctioning of credit limit or whether any undertaking to this effect was taken from the company or not in terms of RBI guidelines noted above.
it is a very settled position that the power of ITAT in setting aside cannot be exercised so as to allow Assessing Officer to cover up the deficiency in its case.
In this case we find that AO has not made any substantive assessment. There may be substantive assessment without any protective assessment, but there cannot be any protective assessment without there being a substantive assessment.
Assessee was allotted a residential plot on 19.01.2004 in Sector-105, Noida through lottery on payment of allotment money of Rs.1,30,000/-. The total purchase price of the plot was Rs. 16,75,000/-. 2. The assessee on 28.02.2004 entered into an Agreement to sell in respect of this plot with M/s Rosebud Construction Pvt. Ltd through its Director […]
It is an well established proposition of law that being penal in nature, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are invoked only when there is evidence beyond doubt that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee towards the tax alleged to be evaded.
In the instant case, it is the assessment of person allegedly searched, which is disputed before us, unlike the notice issued for the assessment of `other person’ before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even otherwise, the issue of invalidity of the search warrant in that case was not raised at any point of time prior to […]
