Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of TDS u/s 194H and 194J on account of trade offers amounting to INR 834,92,63,976 provided by assessee to its distributors (HCL Info systems Ltd as well as other distributors) was not justified as there was absence of a principal-agent relationship thus, benefit extended to distributors could not be treated as commission under Section 194H and also, AO had not given any reasoning or finding to the extent that there was payment for technical service liable for withholding under Section 194J.
It was an admitted fact that assessee filed reply in response to notice under section 148 on 26-11-2013 and AO on the very same day served notice under section 143(2) upon assessee, whose signatures tally on the said notice without confronting the assessee with the remand report and the evidence produced by the AO before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, notice issued under section 143(2) was invalid and resultantly, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated and the same were quashed.
Revised/enhanced minimum threshold limit of tax effect of Rs. 50 Lakh vide CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, dated 8-8-2019 was applicable not only for appeals to be filed by Revenue in future; but also for appeals already filed by Revenue in ITAT. Therefore, all existing appeals in ITAT, having tax effect below the revised/enhanced limit of Rs. 50,00,000, were to be treated as withdrawn/not pressed; and were, not maintainable.
pleader’s gross carelessness affords no ground for condonation of delay; that a legal advisor’s mistake, in order to justify condonation of delay must be a bonafide mistake; that mistaken advice given by a lawyer negligently and without due care is not sufficient cause; that the mistake should be such, which even a skilled legal advisor, well=versed and experienced in law might make that mistake; that, the fact that there was lawyer’s wrong advice has to be proved by the party seeking condonation of delay; and that the Counsel must disclose the circumstances in which incorrect advice was given and, it is not sufficient to make a perfunctory and general statement that wrong advice was given bonafide.
When a retiring partner took only money towards the value of his share on retirement and when there was no distribution of capital asset/ assets going to the partners, there was no transfer of capital asset and consequently no profits or gains was chargeable u/s. 45 (4).
DCIT Vs. Kushal Infraproject Industries India Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The assessee has admittedly sold the agricultural land as it is so there were no intention to do any business activity, therefore, period of holding would not be relevant. The intention of the assessee is therefore clear that assessee purchased the agricultural land and sold the […]
Receipts of advance against sale of commercial space is not a receipt in the nature of loan or advance as contemplated in section 2(22)(e) of the Income tax Act, 1961 which attracts the provisions of in that section as the said advance is in the nature of business advance which did not fall within the ambit of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income tax Act, 1961.
Assesssee did not furnish PAN and Bank statements or any of the directors of investor companies merely showing that transactions were carried out through banking channel was not sufficient to prove genuineness of transaction in the matter. When investors having nil income had deposited cash in their bank account immediately before giving cheque to assessee. The same were bogus entries received by assessee in the name of sale of shares and addition was rightly made by AO under section 68.
AGR Matthey of Western Australia Vs. ADIT (ITAT Delhi) From the records it can be seen that there is no interest credit, since within a day or two of usance of letter of credit by PEC Ltd’s bank to the Assessee, letter of credit stands discounted by the Assessee with ANZ Bank of Australia. The […]
Shri Anoop Jain Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The learned departmental representative vehemently objected to the stay petition and stated that assessee has obtained the bogus long-term capital gain in penny stock and therefore it does not deserve stay of demand. He further submitted that there are equal numbers of judicial precedent against the assessee and […]
