ITAT Jaipur quashes PCIT’s revision under Section 263, upholding the AO’s decisions on sales promotion expenses after detailed inquiries.
In the case of Raj Auto Wheels (P) Ltd vs ACIT, ITAT Jaipur meticulously analyzed additions based on customer advances and sales deferment, emphasizing legal principles and fair assessment. Tribunal’s rulings underscore the importance of genuine transactions and consistent legal application in tax assessments.
The issue involved the contention that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) should not be made if the payee has already paid taxes. Noteworthy payees included public limited companies such as Maruti Udhyog Ltd., and Non-Banking Finance Corporations like Sundaram Finance, AU Finance, and Mahindra & Mahindra Finance.
Tribunal concluded that the enhancement of the sale amount and the application of a higher GP rate of 3.25% lacked justification. The resultant addition of Rs. 2,26,41,521/- was deleted. However, to cover possible income leakage, an ad hoc addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- was allowed.
ITAT Jaipur held that requirement of TDS deduction u/s. 194C of the Income Tax Act on payments made to Eco Development Committee remanded back to AO with a direction to relook on various aspects.
ITAT has deleted the entire addition and disallowance based for imposition of penalty, the penalty imposed so cannot continue and therefore, deserves to be deleted in full with reference to aforesaid the addition & disallowance.
ITAT Jaipur held that non-deposit of employees contribution to ESI and PF within due date as per the respective Act is disallowance by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Jaipur rules in favor of Rakesh Sharma, rejecting the addition of Rs. 22,54,250 under Section 69 for AY 2008-09, emphasizing the genuineness of bank transfers and cash withdrawals for cash deposits.
ITAT Jaipur held that initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the ground and default on the part of the assessee and also without specifying the undisclosed income on which penalty was proposed to be levied is unsustainable-in-law.
Since assessee had deliberately not avoided TDS and there was no contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee, therefore, penalty was not leviable for not deducting TDS on foreign remittances.
