The Mumbai Bench found that short deduction of TDS, if any, could have been considered as liability under the Income-tax Act as due from the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance of the entire expenditure, whose genuineness was not doubted by the assessing officer is not justified. A similar view was also taken by the Kokatta Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CIT vs M/s S.K. Tekriwal (supra).
For condonation of delay, two questions are required to be seen (i) whether there is sufficient cause and it depends from case to case whether in given circumstances, sufficient cause has been established or not? (ii) Whether the law of limitation has to be enforced or the question of limitation should be taken only as a mere formality.
A physician, being in a position of trust and power, has a duty to act in the patient’s best interest. To maintain trust, a physician must avoid making sexual advances. Sexual advances or inappropriate touching of a patient by a medical practitioner is a grave breach of trust
In the result, we are of the opinion that Section 40(a) (ia) would cover not only to the amounts which are payable as on 31th March of a particular year but also which are payable at any time during the year. Of course, as long as the other requirements of the said provision exist.
The assessee sold the property at a sum of Rs.2,51,50,000/- For the purpose of stamp duty, however, the value was estimated at a sum of Rs.5, 19,77,000/- and on that basis the stamp duty was realized. During the assessment, it was found that the assessee had disclosed the sale price
The assessee before execution of the sale deed purchased the properties vide document No. 8547/2008 on 18.09.2008 for Rs. 47,53,223/-, document No. 8743/2008 on 04.10.2008 for Rs. 51,47,014/- and document No. 8295/2008 on 24.09.2008 for Rs. 28,68,302/-
We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that the value of the property in this case as reflected in the registered sale deed was Rs. 55,00,000/-. Reference u/s. 142A was made to the DVO by the Assessing Officer.
In this case Assessing Officer noted that from the perusal of the balance sheet and Annexures it was noted that the assessee has taken loans from banks, amounting to RS. 8,32,93,610/- in the form of secured loan and also from other parties, amounting to Rs. 56,20,479/-
the stand of the assessee has been that a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- was given to the assessee company, consequent upon the Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the said Company authorizing the assessee to invest on behalf of the company in units of M/s Reliance Equity Advantage Funds.
In the present case, admittedly, assessee made a claim but the same was rejected and disallowed not for the reason that the claim was not genuine or was fabricated but in view of provisions of law that assessee did not deduct TDS thereon.
