The AO has relied on sub-rule (1) of section 37BA for denying the benefit of TDS during the year under consideration. This part of the Rule provides that the credit for TDS shall be given to the person to whom payment has been made or credit has been given on the basis of information relating to TDS furnished by the deductor. What is material for sub-rule (1) is the beneficiary of credit for the TDS, being the person to whom payment has been made, which in the instant case is the assessee.
The issue under consideration is whether TDS will be granted in the year in which assessee has recorded the corresponding income even if the deposit of TDS is in next financial year?
The issue under consideration is whether Capital Gain will be taxable in the year when consideration for sale of land received irrespective of the possession of the land?
Assessee had only purchased software internally developed by non-resident and non-resident had not passed the copyright and only ‘right to use’ had been given to assessee and as such ‘right to use’ was akin to purchase of copyrighted article and in the absence of purchase of any copyright in the article, the assessee could not be held liable to deduct tax at source out of such payments.
Addition on account of cash deposits can be made only if the source of the deposits remains unexplained. If, on the other hand, the cash deposits in the bank are from the regular books of account maintained by the assessee, then such transactions cannot be said to be unexplained.
DCIT Vs Atlas Copco (India) Limited (ITAT Pune) The assessee has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’). The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to […]
ACIT Vs M/s. Bhaawani Shankar Ginning Factory (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present ground is with respect to addition u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that assessee had received loan from Mahesh Ginning Pvt. Ltd., in which both the partners of the assessee also held 18.19% shares each. We find […]
Addition on non-CASS issues made without obtaining due permission from superior authorities was in contravention of CBDT guidelines and, therefore, could not be sustained.
DCIT Vs Prathamik Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. (ITAT Pune) Brief facts relating to the issue are that the Assessing Officer was of the view that in the absence of any scheme formulated by the assessee bank, the amount paid as ex-gratia to prematurely retiring employees was not to be allowed as deduction. The case of […]
DCIT Vs Genuine Seeds Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Pune) The CIT(A) while deciding the issue in the present case had in turn, relied on the decision of Pune Bench of Tribunal in ACIT Vs. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. (supra), which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court. Consequently, we hold that growing of hybrid seeds in […]
