Assessing Officer, could have only come to a conclusion that the subject transactions were bogus, based on substantive material, and not that because objections were not filed by the petitioner, the assertions made in the pre-assessment notice would have to be deemed to be correct.
In cases where receipt is by way of salary, deductions under Section 192 of the Act is required to be made. No question of payment of advance tax under Part ‘C’ of Chapter VII of the Act can arise in cases of receipt by way of ‘salary’.
Expenditure incurred by pharmaceutical companies in respect of physician sample etc. has remained controversial issue. The recent decision of Mumbai ITAT in DCIT vs. PHL Pharma P. Ltd, Mumbai has thrown new light on the issue.
This conduct on part of the petitioner filing the petition interalia seeking early hearing of its appeal before the CIT (A) and at the same time when the appeal is fixed for hearing by the CIT (A), the petitioner is seeking adjournment on frivolous grounds indicating that the petitioner is not serious about attending the hearing. It appears to be time delaying tactics and abuse of the legal process. In fact on 11th July, 2016 the last adjournment sought by the petitioner was to fix the hearing of the appeal in August 2016. The very fact that the petitioner has been seeking adjournment time and again before the CIT (A) and filing the petition in this Court seeking early hearing of its appeal is an abuse of the process of law.
Learned Counsel for the respondent has taken this Court to Section 132(4) of the Act and contended that the statement made during the search is required to be accepted and the retraction was made after a very long time. The reasoning of the Assessing Officer was confirmed by the Tribunal and therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Assessing officers completely erred in reopening assessments on the basis of either a suspicion that there is suppression of income or on the basis that persons in the same line of business are returning a higher income. Without even mentioning the comparables, no initiation of proceedings under section 147 can be made.
Assessee cannot be held liable to deduct tax at higher of the rates prescribed in section 206AA in case of payments made to non-resident persons having taxable income in India in spite of their failure to furnish the Permanent Account Numbers.
Onus is on the assessee company to bring on record the cogent evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction which in the instant case the assessee is not able to prove the same as per the facts emerging from the records and material before us as […]
In all these appeals preferred by the assessee, the action of the Learned CIT(Appeals) in sustaining the penalty levied under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at Rs.8,53,281 in assessment year 2006-07, Rs.73,54,710 in assessment year 2007-08, Rs.6,81 ,61 5 in assessment year 2008-09, Rs.49,48,020 in assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.10,56,756 in assessment year 2010-11 has been questioned.
Recently ITAT-SB at Hyderabad in Nagarjuna’s case held that even if a non resident does not obtain a PAN, the tax deductor need not deduct TDS at higher rate of 20%.
