DCIT (Exemptions) Vs Nabajuga Educational And Charitable Trust (ITAT Cuttack) At the outset, if the return filed on 31.10.2018 was not accompanied by the audit report, then it was incumbent upon the revenue to issue notice u/s.139(9) of the Act to treat the return filed by the assessee as defective. Admittedly, this has not been […]
DCIT Vs Yazdani International Pvt Ltd (ITAT Cuttack) ITAT Cuttack that expenditure towards various computer software and stationary and the expenditure towards upgradation of software for filing of return before the ROC and website design is revenue in nature and hence allowable. Facts- The revenue has challenged the action of CIT(A) in deleting the addition […]
Rajdhani Institute of Information Technology Vs CIT(A) (ITAT Cuttack) It was the submission that the assessee had been served with a communication dated 21.08.2015 intimating that the return filed by it was a defective return and if the defect was not rectified the return would be treated as invalid. Assessee had not complied with the […]
Prasanta Kumar Mishra Vs ACIT (ITAT Cuttack) Admittedly, the assessee individual is a non-resident Indian and the facts clearly show that the return has been filed with mistakes. These mistakes can admittedly be rectified by filing a rectification application. The rectification application admittedly is not being considered on account of the limitation provided u/s. 154(7) […]
Arvind Purseth Vs CIT(A) (ITAT Cuttack) It was submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that the only issue in the appeal of the assessee was that TDS had not been deducted in respect of payments made to M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. and M/s Gulshan Freight Carrier. It was the submission that Form 26A had been […]
Arvind Purseth Vs CIT(A) (ITAT Cuttack) It was submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that the only issue in the appeal of the assessee was that TDS had not been deducted in respect of payments made to M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd. and M/s Gulshan Freight Carrier. It was the submission that Form 26A had been […]
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.
