High Court Kolkatta held in CIT,TDS Vs Khadim Shoes Pvt Ltd that the order passed by the CIT(A) should contain reasons for its conclusions of decisions. An order without reasons is of no relevance. So the appeal had been dismissed.
CIT vs. Williamson Magor & Co. Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) The question no.(h) which related to deletion of disallowance of interest on account of borrowed capital is delivered by ITAT based on own previous year judgment but no finding was arrived indicating that the borrowed capital was not utilized for the purpose of earning exempt income. So matter remanded back to the AO.
Punjab & Haryana High Court held In the case of M/s Maken Cement Industries vs. CIT that it is settled principle that the substantial question of law would only be based on the documents which were before the authorities below and also which were subject matter of consideration before the Tribunal.
Contention of the Assessee- Provision of Sec. 40(a)(ia) shall apply only in respect of the amounts payable at the end of the year and shall not apply on the amounts actually paid by the appellant during the year.
The following disallowances were made by the AO by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act: – 1 Disallowance on account of transportation charges paid to M/s. Lalji Mulji – Rs. 1 ,59,386/- 2 Disallowance on account of export freight charges paid – Rs. 6, 17,830/ – 3 Disallowance on account of export freight paid to Indian agents of foreign shipping companies – Rs. 3,70,062/-
In this case ITAT Mumbai distinguished the Allahabad High Court’s ruling in the case of CIT v. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. (ITA No.122 of 2013) and held that the issue of ‘paid and payable’ was not subject of reference before the Allahabad High Court.
It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee had not incurred the expenditure claimed or that the claim of expenditure was bogus or incorrect. The disallowance of expenditure was attracted due to non-deduction of TDS and it cannot be said to be a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
The question which arises for consideration in the present appeals is the constitutional validity of the retrospective amendment to Section 143(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court have held that the retrospective effect given
Hon’ble High Court held that making of an incorrect claim would not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income when Assessee has made full disclosure of relevant Facts and of Claim Made as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158.
The assessee had made payments to non-residents on account of interest, royalties and fees for technical services and the same were subject to withholding under Section 195 of the Act. The assessee in accordance with provisions of Section 90(2) deducted tax on such payments as per the beneficial rates prescribed in the DTAA with respective countries.
