Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur) It is not disputed by both the parties that there is no finding in the assessment order for levy of penalty for the alleged default u/s. 271B of the Act and it is also not disputed that after passing of the order on 31.12.2011, the alleged […]
Swaraj Builders Vs ITO (ITAT Raipur) Assessee had failed to comply with the mandate of law and had failed to deduct tax at source u/s.194A of the Act on the aforesaid amount of interest payment of Rs.7,46,025/-. Accordingly, the A.O had disallowed the amount of Rs.7,46,025/-u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act which was thereafter, upheld by the […]
Nakoda Ispat Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Raipur) Admittedly and undisputedly, the employees’s contribution to ESI and PF which have been collected by the assessee from its employees have thus been deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Till this provision is enacted in as the […]
ITAT held that tax withholding provisions under section 194H would not be applicable to discounts extended to pre-paid SIM distributors on transfer of pre-paid SIM cards/talk time.
ACIT Vs Sanjay Agrawal (ITAT Raipur) Insignificant mistakes in the accounts cannot justify rejection of books of accounts of the assessee under Sec. 145(3) of the Act. Facts- The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(2). Accordingly, A.O directed the assessee to substantiate its claim for deduction of expenses under the […]
ITO Vs Satyanarayan Nathulal Gandhi Chowk (ITAT Raipur) Held that the entire purchase amount of such bogus purchase cannot be added at best the addition limited to the extent of G. P. Rate on purchases at the same rate of the genuine purchase. Facts- A survey operation u/s 133A was conducted in the business premises of […]
AO is under obligation to specify the appropriate limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty notice.
ITAT held that as the assessee by placing on record the aforesaid documentary evidence had duly discharged the primary onus that was cast upon it, therefore, the A.O without dislodging the same on the basis of any material and/or evidence could not have held the amounts therein received as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act.
B.B. Verma Vs JCIT (ITAT Raipur) Facts- The assessee firm which is engaged in the business of a contractor had filed its original ROI for the AY 2011-12 on 30.09.2011, declaring an income of Rs.85,46,970/-. The ROI filed by the assessee was processed as such u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee […]
Lahari Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Raipur) With reference to the first issue i.e. incorrect allowance of depreciation of Rs.59,45,940/- on bogus purchase of Plant & Machinery, the learned counsel for the assessee fairy submitted that where the A.O. has made disallowance on Plant & Machinery, it was permissible for the A.O. to disallow […]
