AO was not justified in treating assessee's transaction of purchase of agricultural land from his wife as colorable device to avoid the legitimate payment of tax on mere difference between purchase price declared by assessee vis-a-vis Jantri Value as assessee had discharged his primary onus by furnishing the necessary details to justify t...

Patel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Rajkot) The issue under consideration is whether contractors performing the work in the nature of a developer-cum-contractor are eligible to claim deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ITAT states that even after the amendment by the Finance Act, 2007 and the Finance Act, 2009, th...

The issue under consideration is whether the assessee is correct in stating that cognizance taken under section 153A of the Act is illegal at the end of the A.O.?...

DCIT Vs Late Shri Pravinsinh N Zala (ITAT Rajkot) Whether the amendment brought under the provisions of section 153C of the Act, where the word ‘belong’ was replaced with the word ‘pertain’ is applicable for the year under consideration. It was only on 1st June, 2015 when the amended provisions came into force that the […]...

It is a settled principle of law that where addition to assessee’s income is made on estimate basis penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed....

As per the circular no. 723 dated 19.09.1995 states that where the provisions of Section 172 are to apply, the provisions of Section 194C and 195 relating to tax deduction at source are not applicable....

Merely the payment of investigation charges to the chartered accountant firm was made by the bank on behalf of the assessee did not mean that the transaction was covered under the provisions of section 194A read with section 2(28A). As such the assessee was liable to deduct the TDS under section 194J and thus, assessee was not eligible fo...

Commission payments made by assessee to Sahayak was on percentage basis depending on various parameters like number of farmers pouring milk, fat and SNF factor in milk, quantity of milk collected etc. which ensured payment was commensurate with work performed and thus, the nature of work carried out by the Sahayak were covered by provisio...

Usance interest paid for the delayed payment to its holding company was not any part of purchase price of goods and was interest within the definition of term ‘interest’ under section 2(28A), therefore, assessee was liable to withhold tax under section 195 from said payment....

Assessee did not disclose income voluntarily but it was disclosed in pursuance to survey conducted under section 133A. Had there not been survey, the assessee would not have offered such undisclosed income, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was correctly levied by AO....