ACIT Vs Swastik Pipes Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) The assessee produced documentary evidences in support of its contention which had not been rebutted by AO and since impugned payments were in the form of reimbursement and no payments were made by assessee directly to shipping companies, therefore, assessee was not liable to deduct tax under section […]
The contention of the Ld. D.R. has no merit that ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad was empowered to issue notice as per PAN or it was issued as per Computerized System of the Department because it is against the provisions of Law. As such the issue would be in violation of the principles of law and as such the internal procedure provided by the department would not justify the illegality committed by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad.
Payment for IUC Charges is not chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the non-resident recipients and hence TDS was not deductible as per provisions of section 195 of the Act.
The facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring income at Rs.22,52,471/-. The assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of trading/ Distribution of ITC Products under the name and style of M/s. DK Enterprises. On verification of the P & L A/c, audited report and books of account of the assessee, it was noticed that assessee had made huge payments to M/s. Hanuman Traders in cash.
Recording of satisfaction by AO of person searched is a condition precedent for AO of other person to acquire jurisdiction and unless jurisdictional condition is satisfied, there can be no question of making assessment or reassessment in the case of such other person.
Hatch Associates India (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Admittedly, the impugned assessment year before us is A Y 2007 – 08. For that, AY the assessee has filed return of income on 30/10/2007. Notice u/s 143 (2) of The Income Tax Act should have been served on the assessee within 6 months from the […]
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against final assessment order dated 27.9.2017 passed u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(5) in pursuance of directions given by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) vide order dated 7.9.2017.
Reasons recorded by AO to reopen assessment merely on basis of information from DIT(Inv.) without independently applying his own mind could not be said to be reason to believe that income had escaped assessment hence, reopening was bad in law.
One these reasonings, in the absence of any material change justifying the Revenue to take a different view of the matter— and, if there was no change, it was in support of the assessee— we do not think the question should have been reopened and contrary to what had been decided by the CIT in the earlier proceedings, a different and contradictory stand should have been taken
Where AO had imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on account of change of head of income in assessment, it was held that mere making a claim which was not acceptable to revenue, could not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to attract penalty proceedings.
