After considering audited balance-sheet, opening cash balance and closing cash balance, AO had not doubted closing cash balance of cash as on 31-3-2011. Also, assessee had pointed out that over all cash balance had remained the same. Thus, lesser opening cash balance as on 1-4-2002 did not call for any addition during the year under consideration as no unexplained cash was introduced in books of account.
The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax wants the Assessing officer to look into various other issues of the assessee which were not covered within the purview of the
Kirloskar Oil Engines Limited Vs JCIT (ITAT Pune) The issue under consideration is whether the disallowance made for commission paid to director u/s. 40A(2) is justified? ITAT states that, the assessee is against disallowance of commission paid to Shri Atul Kirloskar u/s. 40A(2) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that in earlier assessment […]
ITO Vs Smt. Uma Dnyanoba Bhintade (ITAT Pune) The limited issue which arises in the present appeal filed by Revenue is against directions of CIT(A) in allowing the benefit claimed under section 54B of the Act by Assessing Officer, in case the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in the said section. Admittedly, […]
The issue under consideration is whether Non-furnishing of reasons recorded for reopening of assessment made the entire assessment u/s 147 invalid in law?
Assesse-cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-op. Society Act, 1960 was entitled for exemption under section 80P on giving of loans to members/nominal members as the definition of ‘member’ given in section 2(19) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act took within its sweep even a nominal member, associate member and sympathizer member and there was no distinction made between duly registered member and nominal, associate and sympathizer member.
Many a times, we come across cases where the invoice has been raised close to the cut-off date, i.e. closer to the end of a financial year and the customer has accounted for and paid the invoice amount, as well as deducted and deposited the tax at applicable rates in the subsequent financial year.
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?
