Income Tax : Karnataka High Court allows PCIT's appeal, upholding a Section 263 revision for non-disallowance of commission payments without TD...
Income Tax : Understand the penalties, interest, and disallowance of expenditure under Section 201 for failure to comply with TDS provisions in...
Income Tax : Learn about disallowed expenses under PGBP in India's Income Tax Act. Understand key sections like 37, 40, and 40A, and their impa...
Income Tax : Learn about disallowances under Income Tax Act sections and their reporting requirements in Form 3CD during tax audits. Key provis...
Income Tax : Delhi HC rules reimbursements to NRAEs not subject to TDS as "fees for technical services," clarifying scope of Section 9(1)(vii) ...
Income Tax : Section 40(a)(ia) is amended via Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 to restrict the amount of disallowance for non-deduction of tax to 30% ...
Income Tax : The existing provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of Income-tax Act provide for the disallowance of expenditure like interest, commissi...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court held that the issues raised by the Revenue were either covered by binding precedents or based on factual find...
Income Tax : The Tribunal restricted the Section 14A disallowance to exempt income and deleted additions relating to bad debts, tea and coffee ...
Income Tax : The ITAT Chandigarh held that no TDS was deductible where professional fees paid to each payee were below the statutory threshold....
Income Tax : Bangalore ITAT held that mine development expenditure incurred by a mining contractor was allowable as a revenue deduction under S...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that an adjustment against excess contributions already made to an approved gratuity fund could not be disallo...
Income Tax : Circular No. 3/2015 Section 40(a)(i) of the Act stipulates that in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits or gain...
Income Tax : Sub: Deduction of tax at source under Section 195 read with Sections 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 relating to payment made to a...
Income Tax : Circular No. 10/DV/2013-Income Tax It has been brought to the notice of the Board that there are conflicting interpretations by j...
ITO Vs Millenium Writing Products Pvt Ltd. (ITAT Kolkata) Deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act is available to an assessee whose gross total income includes any profits and gains derived from eligible business as specified in the section. Here the assessee is claiming deduction on an item of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of employees’ contribution to PF, which was not deposited within the due date. This is neither an item of profit or gain of eligible business nor an item of Profit & Loss Account or manufacturing account rather it is just an employees’ contribution to PF, which assessee has to collect from its employees and to deposit with the PF authorities within the due date prescribed.
Hemant Mangaldas Bhanushali Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)- The main ground on which the CIT exercised jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, was the failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to make enquiries with regard to the applicability of the provisions of section 194C to the payments made by the assessee to other truck owners in the course of his business of transportation of cargo and the consequent dis-allowance that could be made under the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In para 3.1 of the impugned order of the CIT, the CIT has concluded that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because of the lack of enquiry and application of mind by the Assessing Officer on the above aspect.
Bharati Shipyard Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) – The Finance Act, 2010 has extended the time limit for depositing tax deducted at source by the due date u/s 139(1) of the Act from the earlier lesser time available for compliance.
DCIT, Chennai Vs M/s Aban Offshore Ltd (ITAT Chennai) – Whether disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is warranted for deduction of tax @ 1% on subcontract where the sub-contract is entered into to fulfill the conditions of the main contract and the same is not independent to the main contract ?
Delhi High Court in the case of DCIT v. Cargill Global Trading (I) (P) Limited on the issue of whether discounting charges paid to a non-resident on discounting of bills of exchange (BEs) can be characterized as ‘interest’, liable for withholding held that the discounting charges are not in the nature of ‘interest’ since they are not payable in respect of money borrowed or debt incurred by the Taxpayer.
Recently in the case of ACIT v. Indair Carriers Pvt. Ltd. [I.T.A. No. 1605 (Del) of 2010], the Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, held that payments made to non-resident freight forwarders are not chargeable to tax under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and hence the payer is not liable to withhold tax under section 195 of the Act. Consequently, there is no question of disallowance of the amounts paid to non-resident freight forwarders under section 40(a)(i) of the Act.
Vinod K Nevatia (2011-TIOL-65-ITAT-MUM) CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition applying the decision of Kotak Securities Private Limited and Angel Broking observing that transaction fees paid to the stock exchange could not be said to be fees paid in consideration of stock exchange rendering any technical services to the assessee. Therefore, provisions of section 9(1)(vii) and section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable.
Business disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) – Payment to resident without deduction of tax-Amendment in section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010-Nature of amendment-Amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 in section 40(a)(ia) is of clarificatory nature and hence would apply retrospectively from 1-4-2005.
During the year, the assessee paid Rs.2,83,43,188 to various contractor. The AO noticed that the payment of TDS was not made within the statutory period in respect of payments of the contractors and therefore, it required to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). The assessee claimed before the AO that the entire payment was made in the month of March 2005 and tax was deducted in the month of March 2005 only Therefore, the tax deposited on 21.09.2005 is within the statut
The assessee made payments to sub-contractors during the previous year and though s. 194C requires TDS at the stage of payment/credit, did not do so. The tax was, however, deducted on 31st March and paid over in Sept before the due date for filing the return. The AO took the view that while the payment made to the sub-contractor for March was allowable, the payments for the earlier months was disallowable u/s 40(a)(ia).
