Author Archive: admin

Section 32, 37, 36(1)(iii), 37(1), 131, 133A, 56, 147‎ AY 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15‎ After going through the various terms of the deed if it is loan/finance arrangement ‎between the parties then the assessee is entitled only to claim interest as expenditure u/s ‎‎36 (1) (iii) and depreciation and is not entitled to claim the principal component of ‎alleged lease rent paid as ‘revenue expenditure’ u/s 37(1). FASTWAY TRANSMISSION ‎‎(P) LTD. vs. ACIT ITAT CHANDIGARH May 6, 2020‎

Section 32, 37, 36(1)(iii), 37(1), 131, 133A, 56, 147 AY 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 WHEN LOAN / FINANCE ARRANGEMENT IN THE GUISE OF A LEASE AGREEMENT The moot question is that whether the assessee is the owner of the equipment or…
Read more

131(1), 133A, 147, 36(1)(iii), 37, 37(1), 56, AY 2012-13, AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15, Chandigarh ITAT, In favour of Revenue, Section 32

The AO is not hand writing expert to distinguish the signature of the karigar as appearing in ‎the salary register and this cannot be solitary ground to reject the books of accounts. No GP ‎addition is sustained when no defects have been pointed out by the AO in the the relevant ‎records produced by the assessee in form of export bills, purchased bills and cash books etc. ‎along with books of accounts and also submit the reason of fall in GP.‎

The AO is not hand writing expert to distinguish the signature of the karigar as appearing in the salary register and this cannot be solitary ground to reject the books of accounts. No GP addition is sustained when no defects…
Read more

145(3), 250(6), 43(5), 45(3), In Favour of Assessee, In favour of Assessee (Partly), ITAT Surat

Section 148-ITAT, PUNE BENCH-11 September, 2019 held that Reassessment—Validity—only on the basis of the some reasons to believe about the escapement of income. Existence of reasons for escapement of income are sine qua non to embark upon the assessment or reassessment under section 147 of the Act. Kailash Kanhaiyalal Gidwani v. ACIT. AY 2009-10

Section 148-ITAT, PUNE BENCH-11 September, 2019 held that Reassessment—Validity—only on the basis of the some reasons to believe about the escapement of income. Existence of reasons for escapement of income are sine qua non to embark upon the assessment or…
Read more

143(1), 143(1)(a), 143(2), 143(3), 147, 148, AY 2009-10, In Favour of Assessee, Pune Tribunal

Gujarat High Court on 11 February, 2020 held that if Employees contribution to ‎PF account as well as ESI contribution deposited timely as per section 36(1)(va) ‎then only the deduction is allowable. Kindly note that law as propounded by case ‎laws is different in different States. Kindly further note that this is relating to ‎Employee contribution not employer contribution. PCIT vs M/S Suzlon Energy ‎Ltd.‎

Two different judgements are If deposited timely as per section 36(1)(va) then only the deduction is allowable. Even a delay of 1 day in depositing it may cause the entire amount in default to be disallowed once for…
Read more

2(24)(x), 36(1)(va), 43B, AY 2012-13, Gujrat High Court, In Favour of Assessee

Employees contribution to PF / ESI contribution-Deposited ‎timely as per section 36(1)(va) or upto due date of filing ITR u/s 139(1)-Law as propounded by case laws is different in different States.

Law as propounded by case laws is different in different States regarding Employees contribution to PF account as well as ESI contribution-Deposited timely as per section 36(1)(va) or upto due date of filing ITR u/s 139(1). Kindly note that…
Read more

2(24)(x), 36(1)(va), 43B, Articles

Case Transferred to AO. This means that the your tax return would be done by ‎the AO instead of the Central Processing Cell. If any assessee gets the above ‎information then either the assessee / through AR or advocate contact to the ‎AO or wait for disposal at the AO end. ‎

Case Transferred to AO. This means that the your tax return would be done by the AO instead of the Central Processing Cell. If any assessee gets the above information then either the assessee / through AR or advocate contact to…
Read more

139, 143(1), Articles

ITAT HYDERABAD on 29th April 2020 held that the sale of the property by the Vendee cum AGPA-holder cannot be considered as sale of property by the assessee when the Vendee has paid the entire sale consideration and has taken possession of the property as the Vendee becomes the owner of the property u/s.53A of the TP Act and u/s.2(47) it is a transfer of the property. Further it is worth noting that except being described as the Vendor, the assessee is neither a signatory to the subsequent Sale Deed nor is he the recipient of any of the sale consideration. In SAMA OM REDDY vs. ITO

ITAT HYDERABAD on 29th April 2020 held that the sale of the property by the Vendee cum AGPA-holder cannot be considered as sale of property by the assessee when the Vendee has paid the entire sale consideration and has taken…
Read more

147, 148, 2(47), 53A of Transfer of Property Act, AY 2012-13, Hyderabad ITAT, In Favour of Assessee

The provisions of Section 263 and various judgments and decisions rendered with regard to ‎Section 263 of the Act. ‎ It is well settled law that for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act both the ‎conditions that the order must be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue ‎needs to be satisfied.‎

Article on section 263

Kindly note Supreme Court in Vodafone Idea on 29th April 2020 held that there is ‎assessment year wise regime in processing of refund u/s 143(1) ‎

CONCLUSION Kindly note Supreme Court in Vodafone Idea on 29th April 2020 held that there is assessment year wise regime in processing of refund u/s 143(1) In respect of Assessment Years ending on 31st March 2017 or before,…
Read more

143(1), 143(1)(a), 143(1C), 143(1D), 143(2), 143(3), 241A, AY 2014-15, AY 2015-16, AY 2016-17, AY 2017-18, In favour of Revenue, Limitation period, Refund, Refund section 143(1), Supreme Court

Supreme court on 24th April, 2020 held that clause (f) in Section 43B of the 1961 Act is ‎constitutionally valid and therefore any sum payable by the assessee as an employer in lieu of ‎any leave at the credit of his employee is allowable only on actual payment. Division Bench ‎of High Court at Calcutta order is reversed.‎

“…..the insertion of clause (f) has not extinguished the autonomy of the assessee to follow the mercantile system. It merely defers the benefit of deduction to be availed by the assessee for the purpose of computing his taxable…
Read more

43B, 43B(f), In favour of Revenue, Supreme Court