Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the date of presentation of cheque in the bank is to be reckoned as the date of payment of advance tax and not the date on which the cheque is cleared and entered in the receipt roll as required under Rule 20 of the Central Government Account (Receipts and Payments) Rules 1983
It is not disputed that tax was deducted at source by the tenant Union Motors Services Limited and they have issued some Certificates which has been given credit to by the Department. The present dispute relates to the failure of non issuance of TDS certificates by the tenant.
All the auditors cannot be placed on an equal footing and an assumption cannot be made that an auditor would be able to fulfil his obligations only up to 30 tax audit assignments under section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, per financial year.
Madras High Court upholds assessment of excess gold jewellery as unexplained investment; rejects plea based on Board Instruction dated 11.5.1994.
The power of the assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Act is not in dispute. A challenge made to an order passed on the objections of the assessee would in effect is a challenge made to a notice under Section 148 of the Act. Such an order passed by the assessing officer is only at the stage of process of determination and not a determination by itself. The process of assessment is not required to be challenged before Court of law, as it is a still born child.
The assessee is the proprietor of Shri Vekkaliamman Builders and Promoters and he also happens to be the Managing Director of Southern Academy of Maritime Studies Private Limited, in which he holds share of 63%.
As far as the expression ‘gratuity’ is concerned, there is no definition of what ‘gratuity’ is, even under the Payment of Gratuity Act; yet, a monetary relief to an employee at the time of his retirement or termination of service is treated as ‘gratuity’.
The Tribunal has specifically found that in the process of manufacture of cotton yarn, cotton waste came to be generated and the use of the said waste by another manufacturer shows that it was used as raw material by purchaser.
It is not in dispute that the original authority passed the assessment order on 30.12.2013, as against which, further appeal lies to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 253 of the Act and the time for moving the Tribunal is 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Factually, we find that the onus cast upon the assessee has been discharged by giving a cogent and reliable explanation. Therefore, if the department did not agree with the explanation, then the onus was on the department to prove that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
