ITO Vs Terapanth Foods Limited (ITAT Rajkot) It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has categorically mentioned that Section 195 of the Act would apply only if payment is made which is chargeable under Income Tax Act 1961. The Assessing Officer has not given any reason as to why the chargeability of tax under […]
Smt. Yannaben Anilbhai Jethani Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot) We find that the issue for our consideration is, whether penalty initiated and levied under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, without clearly specifying particular default relates concealment of wealth and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid in law ? The contention of the assessee that […]
ITAT rules in favor of Anilbhai Chunilal Bhayani, rejecting AO’s disallowance of transportation expenses. Assessee’s explanations and documents deemed sufficient.”
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.?
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, 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.
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 […]
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.
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 the cost of acquisition and now the onus was on the Revenue to bring on record the details of the cases to justify the actual prevailing market rate at the time of the purchase of land by assessee.
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 for deduction for the expenses due to non-deduction of TDS.
