In the present appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Jamnagar [CIT(A)- in short] in confirming the addition of Rs.3,25,528/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
In the present case, the ld.AO has granted depreciation at the rate of 15% without examining relevant provisions. It appears that his finding is based upon his experience and past impression. He was of the opinion that once Board has not granted higher rate of depreciation to cars, which are put in the business of hiring, or in public transportation, then how a partner, who used motor car for the purpose of business can be granted at a such rate.
ITAT Rajkot held In the case of GAC Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO – International Taxation that entire freight income of the assessee, which is only from operation of ships in international traffic, is taxable only in Singapore.
Intention of the assessee was to turn over the stock as frequently as possible to ensure quick realization of profits on sale of shares. In the Tax Audit Report, the nature of the business of the assessee has been shown as trading of shares. The tax auditor has come to the aforesaid conclusion after due examination of the books of account.
Bare perusal of the scheme of Chapter XVII-B shows that it mandates the person responsible for paying any sum out of which tax is required to be deducted at source to deduct the requisite amount of tax at source out of the amounts paid/credited by him. Deduction of tax is made out of the amounts paid/credited by the person responsible for paying/crediting the same.
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
