Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing M/S.Kk Rocks & Granites India P. Ltd, ... vs The Dcit, Cen Circle, Tvm, Trivandrum on 24 September, 2018

M/S.Raja &Co;, Palakkad vs The Dcit, Thrissur on 26 June, 2019

5.2 The Ld. AR relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of DCIT, Trivandrum Vs. M/S.K.K.Rocks & Granites India Pvt. Ltd; & vice versa 2018 (9) TMI 1539-ITAT Cochin wherein it was held that the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act 2014 is also a beneficial provision and has retrospective operation as was held by this Tribunal with regard to the amendment effected by the Finance Act 2012. Therefore, the disallowance should be limited to 30% of the sum paid without TDS in view of the amendment of section 40(a)(ia) by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 with effect from 1.4.2015. By virtue of insertion of this proviso to section 40(a)(ia), if any such sum taxed has been deducted in any subsequent year or has been deducted during the previous year but paid after the due date specified in sub- section (1) of section 139, such sum shall be allowed as deduction in computing the income of previous year but paid after the due date specified in sub-section(1) of section 139, such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of previous year, and further, section 40(a)(ia) has been substituted wherein 30% of any sum payable to a resident has been substituted. According to him, though 5 I.T.A. Nos.158&159//Coch/2019 substitution to section 40(a)(ia) has been made with effect from 1/4/2015, the amendment is to be treated as retrospective in view of the following decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by him:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Akash Education & Development Trust, ... vs Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 18 April, 2022

(iv) M/s. Chamundi Granites (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (1999) 106 taxman.com 364 (Karnataka) wherein it was held that - Section 269SS has placed restriction on taking any loans or deposits otherwise than by way of an account payee cheque. It is only a reasonable restriction and does not take away the right of any person even to take loan from other person in the manner prescribed under law. It is the mode prescribed under the section which is to ensure prevention of evasion of tax to avoid fictitious entries to be made in the books of account without there being any actual transaction. There is no infirmity in enactment of such a provision since it carries out its object of prevention of evasion of tax and plug possible loopholes. The lender and borrower constitute a different class. For the reason because the borrower has been made liable, it cannot be construed that there is violation of article 14. It is only in the case of the borrower who needs adjustment by book entries only to avoid tax. The loan may be genuine and in a particular case a reasonable hardship might be created to the borrower by such a provision. But the ultimate aim of the section is to prevent evasion of tax. Section 269SS to prevent evasion of tax is ancillary and incidental to the main power to levy the tax. The contention that if the loan is taken again and again and repaid, it may result in levy of penalty more than the loan once taken and, therefore, confiscatory, has also no substance because the Legislature intended to check the transactions which are beyond the prescribed limit and they should be only through account payee cheque. If any ITA No.737/Bang/2021 Page 11 of 37 contravention is made, action could be taken under section 271D. The provisions of sections 269SS and 271 D are the reasonable restrictions in accordance with the powers which are with the Parliament and as such, cannot be considered violative of articles 14 and 19. The writ petitions, therefore, having no force were to be dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Madhuvan Corporation, Vadodara vs The Addl. Cit, Central Range, Vadodara on 28 February, 2022

01/06/2015 vide the Finance Act 2015) are capable of including the deposits/contributions from the customers/ members especially the booking by them for purchase of units constructed by the Real Estate Developers like the assessee in the case. Any other person covers the customers/members booking for the purchase of constructed units. 1 am also of the considered view that section 269SS is not restricted to the deposits entered in the regular books of accounts of the assessee. Furthermore it has been held by the Supreme Court in ADIT (Inv) Vs Kumari A B Shan.fi/Chamundi Granites P Ltd, Vs DCIT (2002) 122 Taxman 574 that section 269SS or 27ID is not unconstitutional on the ground that it was draconian or expropriatory in nature and that any undue hardship is very much mitigated by the inclusion of section 273B whereby the penalty cannot be imposed if the assessee has a "reasonable cause" for failure to comply to the respective provision. If there was a genuine and bonafide transaction and if for any reason the assessee could not get deposit(s) by account payee cheque or demand draft for some bonafide reasons, the tax authorities have discretionary powers. 5.4 It has been seen that the seized pages 1 to 5 of Annexure BS-1 have been established to have the amounts with three zero suppressed and therefore they were not related to petty site expenses as claimed by the assessee and in reality the amounts were in cash taken by the assessee as on-money from the customers/members towards the booking/sale of constructed units. It cannot be subscribed that the addition made by the AO was merely on the basis of presumptions. More so it is well known and needs no specific evidence that there are always elements of cash on-money in real estate transactions. There is clear violation of provisions of section 269SS as it stands now and thus the assessee is liable for penalty u/s 27ID. During the appeal proceedings the assessee has not made out any case of "reasonable cause" for the said failure as envisaged u/s 273B for non-levy of the penalty.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

L.C. Kailash & Associates, New Delhi vs Assessee

7. In order to explain the merit, it was contended that out of the total amount worked out by the Assessing Officer at Rs.5,74,087, Rs.1,59,871 represent the travelling advance received by the assessee. The details of such advance has been explained by the assessee in its written submissions filed before the Learned CIT(Appeals). It is pointed out in the submissions that a sum of Rs.34,793, Rs.33,672, Rs.79,690 and Rs.12,346 was received by it from Jai Prakash Enterprises Ltd. (JEL), Jai Prakash Hotels Ltd. (JHL), Jai Prakash Ventures Ltd. (JPVL) and Jai Prakash University of Institute (JUIT). The travelling advances were incurred by the assessee in the succeeding year when audit of these concerns was taken up and, therefore, 6 the same could not be said to be income of the assessee either on cash basis or on mercantile basis. According to the assessee, this income has not arisen to it. In support of its contention, assessee has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Shoorji Ballabh Dass & Co. reported in 46 ITR 144 and order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of KK Khullar Vs. DCIT reported in 116 ITD 301. With regard to the balance amount of Rs.4,13,586, assessee made an elaborate explanation. Its submission has been reproduced by the Learned CIT(Appeals) which read as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private ... vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 9 January, 2024

26. Referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of KK Khullar vs. DCIT reported in 116 ITD 301, he submitted that when there is a liability to be discharged by the assessee, the income in its entirety cannot be taxed. He submitted that it has been held that in accordance with provisions of section 4 and 5 of the Act, the amount collected in advance for specific purpose cannot be considered as income, unless the assessee performs the function for which the amount was collected.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private ... vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 9 January, 2024

26. Referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of KK Khullar vs. DCIT reported in 116 ITD 301, he submitted that when there is a liability to be discharged by the assessee, the income in its entirety cannot be taxed. He submitted that it has been held that in accordance with provisions of section 4 and 5 of the Act, the amount collected in advance for specific purpose cannot be considered as income, unless the assessee performs the function for which the amount was collected.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private ... vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 9 January, 2024

26. Referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of KK Khullar vs. DCIT reported in 116 ITD 301, he submitted that when there is a liability to be discharged by the assessee, the income in its entirety cannot be taxed. He submitted that it has been held that in accordance with provisions of section 4 and 5 of the Act, the amount collected in advance for specific purpose cannot be considered as income, unless the assessee performs the function for which the amount was collected.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Varsha Viswanath Properties Private ... vs Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 9 January, 2024

26. Referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of KK Khullar vs. DCIT reported in 116 ITD 301, he submitted that when there is a liability to be discharged by the assessee, the income in its entirety cannot be taxed. He submitted that it has been held that in accordance with provisions of section 4 and 5 of the Act, the amount collected in advance for specific purpose cannot be considered as income, unless the assessee performs the function for which the amount was collected.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next