A division bench of the Delhi HC comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Chander Shekhar denied the dis allowance made in case of old creditors under section 40(1) of the Income Tax Act.
In the case of M/s. A.N. Build well Pvt. Ltd Vs. DCIT, the ITAT Delhi bench comprising Amit Shukla (JM) and SH. O.P. Kant (AM) was held that if the significant risk and reward are transferred to the buyer, the amount received from the buyer to the extent of the stage of completion of the project has accrued to the Assessee- Builder and it should be subject to tax in terms of section 5 of the Income Tax Act.
That the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 1010.2017 (Annex.13) passed by the Respondent No.4, impugned Order-in-Original dated 31.3.2005 (Annex.9) and impugned order – in – Appeal dated. 12.8.2015 (Annex.10) may kindly be quashed and set aside
Kailash A. Kothari Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Learned departmental representative submitted that it is abundantly clear that the said donor has no capacity to give the said gift. He submitted that in absence of the cogency of the capacity, mere declaration of gift cannot be accepted as sufficient. He further submitted that the bank statement […]
Both appeals by assessee are directed against the different orders of the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-12, New Delhi, dated 28-2-2017 for assessment year 2011-2012, challenging the addition on merit as well as levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Impugned in the present revision petitions are the different orders passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda, whereby the J.D.-Insurance Company was directed to deposit within 15 days the TDS amount, which has been deducted at source. The J.D. was given liberty to withdraw the TDS amount from Income Tax Department.
The core issue involved in the present case is with regard to the admissibility or otherwise of the Cenvat Credit on Goods Transport Agency service availed for transport of goods from the place of removal to buyer’s premises.
t is trite that ignorance of the law is not an excuse and lack of understanding would also be akin to ignorance; which cannot validly be taken up. The delay is also huge coming to 1964 days.
Roaming services are provided by telecom operators are in the nature of use of standard facilities, which do not require any human interface. Further, since the roaming charges are not paid for rendering managerial, technical or consultancy services, said services cannot be construed as fees for technical series as defined under provisions of section 194J of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source on such roaming charges.
Assessee cannot be penalized merely on the ground that the six companies as discussed above failed to reply to the notices issued to them under section 133(6) of the Act.
