Incomplete or under Construction Building not liable to wealth tax- Incomplete building of the assessee neither falls within the definition of a building, as contemplated under section 2(ea) of the Act, nor within the purview of urban land as excluded by Explanation 1(b) of the Wealth Tax Act.
In our considered view, therefore, on the facts of the present case wherein entire tax and interest has been duly paid well within the time limit for payment of notice of demand under section 156 and well before the penalty proceedings were concluded, the assessee could not be denied the immunity under section 271AAA(2) only because entire tax, along with interest, was not paid before filing of income tax return or, for that purpose, before concluding the assessment proceedings.
There has been a lot of emphasis in the orders of the authorities below, as indeed in learned Departmental Representative’s arguments before us, about the scope of assessee’s obligations to deduct tax at source under section 194J. However, having regard to the fact that we are in seisin of the limited question of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), we see no need to deal with that aspect of the matter at this stage. As far as this appeal is concerned, all these things issues regarding tax deduction at source obligations will be relevant only if one is to come to the conclusion that section 40(a)(ia) can be invoked in respect of the payments in question.
Explore the Roy Mitra vs. ACIT case (ITA No. 1703/2009) involving Sec. 194C, TDS, and contractual disputes. Key rulings and implications revealed.
DCIT Vs. Pioneer Marbles & Interiors Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)- Under the scheme of Section 271 AAA, there is a complete paradigm shift so far as penalty in respect of unaccounted income unearthed as a result of search operation carried out on or after 1st June 2007 is concerned. Unlike in the case of penalty under section 271(1)(c), Section 271 AAA, without any reference to findings or presumptions of concealment of income or the findings or presumptions of furnishing of inaccurate particulars, provides that in respect of unaccounted income in the cases where search initiated after 1st June 2007, the assessee is to pay a penalty @ 10% of unaccounted income.
Assessee has made payments to the CDLB for supply of these workers. As long as the assessee has made payments to the CDLB for supply of labour, even when this labour may be treated as employed by the assessee for all practical purposes, the provisions of Section 194 C are clearly attracted. In such a situation, i.e. when labour hired by the assessee through CDLB is considered to be in assessee’s employment, the payments made to CDLB cannot be treated as payments for ‘any work’ , but nevertheless these payments could still be covered by the provisions of Section 194 C because these are payments made for ‘supply of labour’ which are specifically covered by Section 194 C(1).
DCIT Vs. Hooghly Dock & Port Engineers Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata)- The assessee is under the Ministry of Shipping, Govt. of India. Assessee’s business is in ship building, ship repairing and general engineering. The ld. A.O. made an addition of Rs. 2 crores, which was stated as received from Government for upkeep of plant & machinery. The ld. A.O. was of the view that this is the revenue expenditure and the amount was received, as per the ld. A.O., on revenue account. He, therefore, treated it as income of the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal.
DCIT Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) – In the assessment order the A.O. did not accept this claim of the assessee on the ground that for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2005-06 the department had gone in appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the decisions of Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata in this matter. Thus the A.O. disallowed an amount of Rs.l,35,87,876/- as excess depreciation claimed. On appeal ld. CIT(A ) after taking into consideration of the various documents filed by assessee before him and following the decisions of the ITAT, Kolkata from 2001-02 to 2005-06 deleted the disallowance of Rs. 1,35,87,876/- made by AO. It is further observed that the filing of appeal before the Hon’ble High Court against the decision of this Tribunal for A.Yrs.2001-02 to 2005-06 will not have any effect since the Hon’ble High Court has neither set aside the orders of the Tribunal nor granted any stay. Respectfully following the same we dismiss the appeal of the revenue.
Though there are nine grounds raised by assessee there are only two issues involved in this appeal. One issue in ground no.3 is relating to confirmation of dis allowance of Rs. 25,000/- made by AO and further enhancement of dis allowance by Rs. 1,56,609/- u/s 14A of the IT Act.
Addl. CIT Vs. J.A. Land & Housing Development India Limited (ITAT Kolkata) – Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271D for the assessment year 2004-05 in respect of M/s. J.A. Land & Housing Dev. India Limited and also in assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07, as well as under section 271E of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08 in the case of M/s. J.A.M. Chemical Works Limited. Assessing Officer was of the view that violation of Section 269SS which defines ‘loan or deposit’ & Section 269T defines ‘loan or deposit’ and the common word loan means lending a sum of money by one party to another upon agreement to repay.
