provisions of section 142A of the Act provides that the Assessing Officer may refer the matter to the DVO for the purpose of estimation of the value of the asset, property or investment and get a copy of the report from the DVO. The word ‘may’ makes it discretionary to refer the matter to the DVO. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that it is mandatory.
ITO Vs Sri. Harimurali Sreedhara Panickar (ITAT Cochin) In the instant case, the entire procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act was followed, the only price was fixed upon a negotiated settlement. Therefore, in view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra), we hold that the acquisition of the urban agricultural land […]
Payments made to various artists participating in reality show would fall under section 194C and not under section 194J and there was no infirmity in the action of AO as assessee had rightly deducted TDS u/s 194C.
Navas M. Meeran Vs ACIT (ITAT Cochin) Conclusion: Lease rent received by assessee by letting out the industrial undertaking was not having any direct connection with the manufacture or production of an article or thing by assessee and the same could not be considered as business income eligible for deduction u/s. 80IB. Held: Assessee had […]
Disallowance under section 43B could not be done in respect of provision for gratuity made for the benefit of the employees for the reason that no actual payment was made.
M/s. Johns Biwheelers Vs. ACIT (ITAT Cochin) In this case, the assessee was required to get his books of account audited and filed along with the return of income u/s. 44AB within the due date of 30/09/2013 for the assessment year 2013-14. However, the audit report was furnished only on 28/03/2014. The contention of the […]
Merely because the sale price is fixed through a negotiated settlement will not take away the proceedings from the Land Acquisition Act when the relevant provision of the Act are invoked.
Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Cochin) In the present case, there were no affidavits from the concerned persons who are handling the impugned issues and who are required to take proper steps in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). In our opinion, the decision of the co-ordinate Bench is without doubt binding upon […]
The assessee had not filed the audit report in this case. The assessee was very casual and did not enter appearance for the show cause notice issued for imposition of penalty. The assessee has not made out a reasonable cause as mentioned u/s 273B of the I.T.Act for non-furnishing of audit report u/s 44AB of the I.T.Act. Hence, we are of the view that the penalty u/s 271B of the I.T.Act has been rightly imposed. It is ordered accordingly.
Foreign agent commission and reimbursement of expenditure were not taxable in India and hence, section 195 had no application.
