MSEDCL is a State under Article 12 of Constitution and cash payments made to its franchise/agent is covered under Rule 6DD(b). Therefore, disallowance under Section 40A(3) is not justified.
Ganesh Jagannath Choukse Vs ACIT (ITAT Nagpur) This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nagpur, [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 29/05/2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee has filed return on, 15.05.2013 declaring income of Rs.15,83,910/-. […]
Explore the details of Rahul Udyog’s appeal against ITO, focusing on TDS disallowance and business expenses. Analysis of Hamali, Jalau Lakdi, Bardana expenses, and interest disallowance.
Held that we are of the considered view that the predominant intention of entering into these agreements is letting out of the property and not provision of any independent services.
Sh. Nandkishore Bhikamchand Rathi Vs ITO (ITAT Nagpur) The assessment order passed by disallowing an amount of Rs.5,18,596/- on the ground that the assesse has not followed the provision of Section 194A r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961. ITAT find both the CIT(A) and the AO have not examined as to whether or not […]
Akola Janta Commercial Co-Op Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Nagpur) A plain reading of Section 263 makes it clear that, the precondition to exercise revisionary jurisdiction by the PCIT/CIT suo moto under it, is that the order of AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue is concern. Consequently, […]
Held that explanation 5 to section 43B has prospective effect. Hence, learned NFAC is not justified in disallowing the belated remittance of employees contribution to PF/ESI but paid within the due date of filing the return of income under the normal provisions of the I.T. Act.
Inordinate delay in filing of MAs is not a fit case for condonation, more so, because there is no specific provision in the realm of section 254(2) of the Act to provide for such condonation of delay in case of MAs.
Addition under section 68 of share application money received by assessee on the reason that summons issued under section 131 to the directors of the investment company for verification returned unserved was unjustified as assessee had substantiated share capital received by it by furnishing relevant details and no onus was cast on the assessee during relevant assessment year to produce the persons or the books from investment companies.
These are cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue emanating out of the orders of learned CIT(Appeals)-III, Nagpur for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. Since the issues are connected and the appeals were heard together
