The issue under consideration is whether as per Section 43CB, profits and gains of a construction company mandatorily be determined on the basis of percentage completion method for revenue recognition?
Laxmi Narayan Jewellery Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) From the order passed u/s.143(3) of the assessment year 2012-2013, there is no any single word found in regard to survey proceedings u/s.133A of the Act, whereas the documents were available with the same AO i.e. Ward-2(2), Balasore and the assessee accepted some discrepancy in stock and agreed […]
Alishan Palace Resorts Pvt Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack) in the instant case, the value adopted and computed by the assessee as per Rule 11UA(2)(c)(b) by following DCF method at Rs.51/85 and the assessee company has received shares and issued/allotted @ Rs.50 per share including premium and this rate has not been contested or challenged […]
AO considered assessee as assessee in default in respect of non-deduction of TDS under Section 194H and 194J of the Act on payment of commission and fees for professional or technical services and passed an order under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act.
The issue under consideration is whether the leasehold rights is considered as intangible assets and hence eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii)? ITAT hold that the lease hold rights are not eligible for depreciation u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Act considering it as intangible rights and, accordingly, dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee.
N. Roja Vs ACIT (ITAT Cuttack) We find that the AO made addition on account of unexplained investment in gold and jewellery of 2417.290 grams as found and seized during the course of search in the residential premises and the Locker No.75/4 & 145/2 of the assessee at Indian Overseas Bank, Rayagada. During the course […]
Both assessment and the penalty order do not specify as to on which limb the AO intends to impose penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act either for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.
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.
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.
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).
