CBDT Clarification Circular On Scope Of S. 40(a)(i) TDS Disallowance
The CBDT has issued Circular No. 3/2015 dated 12.02.2015 in which it has issued a clarification regarding the expression "amounts not deductible" under section 40(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CBDT has referred to its earlier Instruction No. 02/2014 dated 26.02.2014 and clarified that for the purpose of making disallowance of "other sum chargeable" under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, the appropriate portion of the sum which is chargeable to tax under the Act shall form the basis of such disallowance and shall be the same as determined by the AO having jurisdiction for the purpose of section 195(1) of the Act
CIT vs. Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd (Bombay High Court)
Transfer Pricing: Dept is not entitled to challenge the ITAT's decision to determine the interest rate ALP of funds advanced to AE as per Euribor if the earlier ITAT judgements relied upon by ITAT have not been challenged by the Dept
The Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in "VVF Ltd. Vs. DCIT" (supra) and "DCIT Vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd."(supra) on the above issue. No reason has been shown to us as to why the Revenue seeks to take a different view in respect of the impugned order from that taken in "VVF Ltd. Vs. DCIT" (supra) and "DCIT Vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd."(supra). The Revenue not having filed any appeal, has in fact accepted the decision of the Tribunal in "VVF Ltd. Vs. DCIT" (supra) and "DCIT Vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd."(supra). In view of the above we see no reason to entertain the present appeal as in similar matters the Revenue has accepted the view of the Tribunal which has been relied upon by the impugned order
GTL Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 147/151: Non-mentioning in the reasons that approval has been obtained from the CIT vitiates the reopening
Another major discrepancy noticed during the course of arguments is that there is no mention of authorization of a higher authority to initiate the current reassessment proceedings. Since there is no mention of the approval sought from the CIT on the reasons, as recorded by the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings, the entire initiation has been vitiated and become bad in law
Prema Gopal Rao vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 271(1)(c): Revised ROI filed after issue of s. 143(2) notice amounts to voluntary disclosure if AO has not sought specific notice in the notice
Even though the assessed filed the revised return of income after the receipt of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, yet the admitted fact remains that the assessing officer did not seek any type of particulars in that notice. Hence the mistake in the Long term Capital gain could not have come to the notice of the AO at that point of time, meaning thereby, it should be construed that the assessee has declared the higher amount of Long term capital gain voluntarily upon its detection
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:CIT vs. Hariram Bhambhani (Bombay High Court)
Unaccounted Sales: The entire unaccounted sales cannot be assessed as undisclosed income particularly if the purchases have been accounted for. Only the net profit on such unaccounted sales can be taken as income
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment