SC held that the provisions of section 43B would not apply to the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees contribution....

BBG Metal Syndicate Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttack) Admittedly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd(supra) has categorically held that the employees contribution to PF and ESI to the extent it is not paid within due date prescribed under the PF Act, is not allowable u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act. […]...

In case of the assessee itself if we take the presumption that what the assessee has purchased from RSP is only scrap then he would be selling the same to some other steel manufacturing plant. However, the sales are retail sales. This itself shows that what has been sold by the assessee is not scrap but usable products....

ITAT Cuttack held that scientific method of calculation is done and the pay revision is approved, hence the provision for the pay revision is an unascertained liability nor the liability does not crystalise....

Paradeep Paribahan (P) Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Cuttack) The Assessing Officer in the course of original assessment proceedings has made additions only in respect of TCS on the sale of minerals and the addition on account of non-deduction of TDS in respect of interest on borrowed capital paid by the assessee to NBFC. Admittedly, the […]...

Subhag Projects Private Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that four opportunities have been granted to the assessee by issuing notices through ITBA System via e-Mail. It was submitted by the ld. AR that notices have been received but the assessee was unable to correspond with […]...

Sudhi Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) Assessee has filed her return of income at one place i.e. at Kolkata under her PAN A****2218B and the transactions done under PAN A****6846F are also duly reported and disclosed in the said return of income. No doubt has been shown by the revenue authorities on this contention of […]...

Joharimal High School Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) Undisputedly rather admittedly, the assessee does not enjoy registration u/s.12AA of the Act and as per e-return filed before the Bench, as per column 3, the assessee has shown receipt of income of Rs.97,10,521/- and as per column 4(i), amount applied during the previous year or expenditure incu...

Ravi Metallics Limited Vs PCIT (ITAT Cuttack) A perusal of the order of the ld. Pr.CIT shows that the show cause notice issued u/s.263 of the Act has been issues only on 1st March, 2019. Admittedly, the assessee has responded to the show cause notice though on 26.03.2019. In the said reply, the assessee has […]...

It was the submission that assessee has acquired multiple units and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim of exemption u/s. 54F ...