Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur Versus M/s Compucom Softwares Ltd

2015 (8) TMI 927 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

TDS liability - Tribunal found that CIT(A) had rightly considered that tax had been deducted and deposited in the Government treasury - Held that:- The issue has been decided based on the material placed on record by the assessee before the appellate authorities which has gone into by both the appellate authorities, and it being essentially a finding of fact, in our view no question much less substantial question of law can be said to arise out of the order of Tribunal. However, while dismissing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and Mr. J.K. Ranka, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Nikhil Simlote For The Respondent : Mr. Sandip Taneja By the Court (per J.K. Ranka, J.) 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act') is directed against the order dated 21.10.2011 passed by the Division Bench of ITAT, and is relevant for the assessment year 2007- 08. 2. Brief facts for disposal of the present appeal, are that the respondent-assessee is a Public Limited company and is deriving income by way .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d at source, and finding this fact and admission by the Director, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice as to why addition/disallowance be not made of the entire amount claimed as expense on which tax was not deducted at source. 3. The assessee filed replies, however, the Assessing Officer being not satisfied with the explanation so offered, made an addition of ₹ 84,56,827/- which was the amount claimed as expenditure on which, as per AO, tax was not deducted at source. 4. The 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

ited tax at ₹ 6,49,547/- were placed before CIT(A). The CIT(A) being satisfied, deleted the addition. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, who also found that CIT(A) had rightly considered that tax had been deducted and deposited in the Government treasury and the Tribunal finding that the challan had already been placed by the assessee before the CIT(A), who had verified the same, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the revenue. However, the Tribunal also observed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

S on it came to ₹ 6,23,605/- and how it is claimed by the assessee that he had deposited more amount at ₹ 6,49,547/- as against ₹ 6,23,605 and all claim was put forward before the CIT(A) and no opportunity was granted to the Assessing Officer to look into the said facts and, therefore, the Assessing Officer was the correct authority to have gone into the issue. He contended that the matter ought to have been restored to the Assessing Officer. He also contended that order of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version