A judgment is an authority for what it decides. It applies only to those cases in which the requisite amount of tax has been deducted at source out of payments made to the payee and thereafter deposited on or before the due date stipulated by law.
Learn about a legal ruling on tax assessment for a freight company engaged in regular shipping business. Details on jurisdiction and DTAA implications.
The Proviso to s. 10A(1A) provides that no deduction under this section shall be allowed to an assessee who does not furnish a return of his income on or before the due date specified u/s 139(1). The assessee’s argument that the said Proviso is merely directory and not mandatory is not acceptable.
Admittedly, the Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal in the case of I.T.O V/s M/s CMA CGM Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) on identical facts relied on by the ld. counsel of the assessee, quashed the order passed u/s 172(4) of the Act with the observation that the jurisdictional AO may verify the position and take such action as may be warranted in law in terms of section 172(7) to ensure that the income of the assessee from the various voyages does not escape assessment as per the normal provisions of the I-T Act.
Paragraph 2 of the Instruction No. 3/2011, dated 9-2-2011 shows that that it is the policy of the Government to file appeal before this Tribunal only in those cases where tax effect is more than Rs.3 lakhs. Tax effect has been defined in paragraph 4 of the said instructions as the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of the issues against which appeal is intended to be filed
Shri Ram S Sarda Vs DCIT (ITAT Rajkot)- ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Sudhakar M Shetty vs ACIT held that the department has to adjust the seized amount towards the advance-tax from the date when it was seized and accordingly directed the assessing officer to adjust the seized cash from the date of seizure. In the case under consideration we find that the assessee claimed adjustment of seized cash in the return of income filed by the assessee.
Ankur Cm Food Products (Guj) Ltd vs Dy.CIT (ITAT Rajkot)- Ground No. 2 of appeal of revenue is in respect of deletion of addition of Rs.7,01,1 19 on account of excess stock of packing material. During the course of survey at factory premises empty bags and empty pouches numbers 1,02,98,914 were found against the book stock of 83,39,051. There was excess stock of packing material of 19,59,863 pouches valuing Rs.7,01,1 19. In the statement, Shri Ashok Parekh, director of the company while answering question No. 39 stated that packing material of outside parties for which the assessee is doing job work were also at the factory premises.
Vineetkumar Raghavjibhai Bhalodia vs. ITO (ITAT Rajkot)- HUF is a relative inasmuch as HUF is a collective name given to group consisting of individuals, all of whom are relatives under Explanation to Proviso to section 56(2) of the Act. The ld.AR submitted that the term individual would include a group of individuals, hence, an HUF would be covered by the term individual.
Assessing interest expenses disallowance. Own funds cover interest-free advances. Proportionate disallowance if own funds insufficient. Judicial discipline emphasized.
