Sponsored
    Follow Us:

ITAT Cuttack

Non-Availability of PAN of Deductee is not valid excuse for not filing TDS Return

January 8, 2020 3594 Views 0 comment Print

The assessee cannot escape himself for non-filing quarterly TDS merely stating that the PAN of the employees are not available. The penalty is provided in the Income Tax provisions u/s.272A(2)(k) of the Act is mandatory in nature except in case of reasonable cause proved by the assessee, which is lack in this case.

Income shown as Salary Income First and Later claimed as Business Income- ITAT Remands Matter Back to AO

October 16, 2019 1068 Views 0 comment Print

The appeal has been filed against the addition of Rs. 11,12,211/- made by the learned AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeals) treating the said amount as not commission but as salary income without allowing deduction u/s. 37 of the IT. Act, 1961, the expenses incurred to earn the said commission. But in fact, the entire receipt is commission and not salary as it would be clear going though the fact of the case.

Best judgment assessment- Salary & interest to partners can be disallowed

May 2, 2019 3294 Views 0 comment Print

ITAT held that As there was part non-compliance by assessee with first notice under section 142(1) and complete non-compliance with subsequent notice under section 142(1), the AO was right in framing assessment order under section 144 and in denying allowance of interest and salary paid to partners by taking support of provisions of section 184(5).

No addition in case of unabated assessment if no incrimination material was found

December 5, 2018 1266 Views 0 comment Print

Assessment under section 153A could not be made for making addition of unexplained income if assessment was unabated which had attained finality on the date of search and no incriminating material was found as per record. 

Provisions of Section 68 Cannot be applied to Sundry Creditor

November 16, 2018 7830 Views 0 comment Print

The provisions of section 68 cannot be applied to sundry creditors and the assessee cannot be applied to sundry creditors and the assessee cannot be asked to prove the 3 ingredients of cash credits in respect of sundry creditors.

Contribution to EPF & ESI deposited before Income Tax Return filing due date cannot be disallowed

October 23, 2018 12036 Views 0 comment Print

Das & Sons Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Cuttack) amount claimed on payment of PF and ESI having been deposited on or before due date of filing of returns, same could not be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va). FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT This is an appeal filed by the […]

CIT cannot disturb stock valuation method followed by Assessee consistently

September 12, 2018 3630 Views 0 comment Print

M/s. Sree Alankar Vs PCIT (ITAT Cuttack) In the instant case, we find that it is not in dispute that the assessee is consistently following the same method of valuation of closing stock which was also followed in the year under consideration. The profit was deduced in accordance with the method adopted by the assessee. […]

Section 234E fees cannot be levied for Quarter ending before 01.06.2015

August 27, 2018 9051 Views 0 comment Print

When amendment made U/s. 200A of Income Tax Act which has come into effect on 1.6.2015 is held to be having prospective effect, no computation of fee for the demand or the intimation for the fee under Section 234E could be made for the TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015.

Remuneration to partners cannot be disallowed merely because share of partners not fixed or deed not provides for manner of quantification of such remuneration

August 27, 2018 8154 Views 0 comment Print

Panda Fuels Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case the Assessing Officer disallowed deduction for remuneration paid to partners of Rs.6,64,923/- on the ground that the partnership deed does not provide for remuneration to partners. The same […]

Penalty u/s. 271E cannot be levied in case of bonafide belief

August 23, 2018 2847 Views 0 comment Print

Penalty u/s.271E was not leviable as the belief of assessee that return of advance from customers was not prohibited by section 269T was a bonafide belief.

Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031