Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Income Tax-10 Versus M/s. Onward E. -Services Ltd.

Legality of allowing the claim for deduction by way of filing revised statement of income during the assessment proceedings - revenue contended that since the assessee has not claimed the deduction in its original return, the assessee cannot claim any benefit which the assessee has forgotten to claim while filing the return - Held that:- It is found that TDS on the alleged payment was deposited on 19.05.2007 i.e. in the F.Y. 2007-08 relevant to the AY under consideration. Even by the pre amendme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT] and Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/s. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd [2014 (7) TMI 477 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the amendments to the section brought about by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1st April 2004 were retrospective in nature and would operate from 1st April 1988 – thus, the Tribunal was fully justified in deleting the addition on account of delayed payment of Provident Fund of employees' contribution – thus, no substa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sessee pertain to assessment year 2008-09. Mr. Tejveer Singh appearing in support of this appeal submits that the questions at page 4 of the paper-book are substantial questions of law and would arise from the Tribunal's orders and findings. 2. In relation to the first Question, our attention was invited to paragraphs 3 to 5 of the Tribunal order and to urge that the Tribunal has not rendered any specific finding, leave alone the conclusion that what the assessee did was permissible in law. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ingh submits that even though this view of the Assessing Officer was not accepted by the Commissioner, yet, the Tribunal did not express any opinion on the Commissioner's conclusions. Therefore, this question and as proposed at page 4 would arise and it is a substantial question of law. 5. We are unable to agree with Mr. Tejveer Singh and for more than one reason. The Commissioner has found that this is not a case of any revised return of income being filed. What was proposed to be revised a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

₹ 42,44,780/- were disallowed since TDS on the same was not paid within the relevant previous year. That was deposited late. It was paid on 19th May, 2007 and it is, therefore, in a financial year relevant to the assessment year 2008-09. If this was the sum paid and namely ₹ 42,44,780/- during the year under consideration, then, the deduction should be in this sum. The Commissioner found that the approach of the Assessing Officer was entirely incorrect inasmuch as the deduction perta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version