Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2117 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of employee’s contribution to PF and employee’s contribution to ESI u/s.36(1)(va) - contribution not deposited within the prescribed due date under the respective Act - HELD THAT:- Amount claimed on payment of PF and ESI having been deposited on or before due date of filing of returns, same could not be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va) - See M/S RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPN. LTD [2017 (7) TMI 1087 - SC ORDER]. - Decided in favour of assessee. TDS u/s 194I - addition of rent paid without deduction of TDS u/s.40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT:- If the recipient of the amount Smt. Sunanda Nayak has disclosed has disclosed the amount received from the assessee in her return of income and paid due tax thereon, in view of the decision of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd. [2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] then, no disallowance in the hands of the assessee is called for - set aside the orders of lower authorities and restore this issue back to the file of the AO to verify whether the recipient Smt. Sunanda Nayak has disclosed the amount received from the assessee in her return of income or not. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purpose. Differential amount of receipts as per 26AS and as per profit and loss - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that 26AS statement clearly revealed that the assessee has failed to disclose receipts from certain parties and has also failed to reconcile the discrepancies found in this respect in the 26AS statement. Before us, ld A.R. of the assessee has also failed to reconcile the discrepancies found in 26AS statement. No reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this ground - Decided against assessee
|