Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of CIT Vs. Lovely Exports [216 CTR 195] wherein their Lordships observed Can the amount of share money be regarded as undisclosed income under Sec. 68 of I.T. Act, 1961? We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition for the simple reason that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their Individual assessments in accordance with law. Hence, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment
There is no dispute to the fact that as per sec. 251(1) of the Act, the ld. C.I.T.(A) has no power to set aside any matter to the file of ld. A.O. for fresh verification and adjudication. Therefore, considering the fact that some additional evidence was admitted by the ld. C.I.T.(A) and he has set aside some issues to the file of ld. A.O. u/s. 251(1) of the Act, which he is not empowered to do, we deem it proper to set aside the orders of the authorities below and remit the issues to the file of ld. A.O. for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
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.
