Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.40 seconds)

A.P Associates, Basti vs Assessee on 15 March, 2016

8. Regarding the deduction on account of interest and remuneration paid to partners, we find that it is held by Ld. CIT(A) that since the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144, in view of the provisions of Section 184(5) and section 185, such deduction on account of interest and remuneration to the partners is not allowable. Now, we deal with the Tribunal's order cited by Ld. AR of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Surendra Prasad Mishra Vs. ITO (Supra). In this case, it was held by the Tribunal that for the purpose of applying section 184(5) of the Act there has to be complete failure as envisaged u/s 144 and mere non cooperation of the assessee making it difficult to determine the correct income may justify an assessment u/s 144 of the Act but that by itself is not sufficient to assess the firm as an AOP u/s 184(5). In the present case, we find that initially the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act but the same was not complied with and thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) again for which part compliance was made by the assessee by appearing before the Assessing Officer along 7 with the copy of cash book and audit report of the assessee firm but the assessee firm did not comply fully to the questionnaire annexed to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. The assessee has not produced the copy of such questionnaire attached by the Assessing Officer along with notice issued u/s 142(1) and the letter submitted by the assessee before the Assessing Officer in compliance thereof. Hence, in the present case, it cannot be said that there is some non cooperation of the assessee making a difficult to determine the correct income but in the present case, there is substantial non compliance if not full non compliance by the assessee and therefore, in the facts of present case, this Tribunal's order cited by Ld. AR of the assessee is not applicable. There is no other argument of the Ld. AR of the assessee as to why and how deduction should be allowed to the assessee in respect of interest and remuneration to the partners. Hence, on this issue, we find no reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanjay Bapusaheb Patil, Pune vs Department Of Income Tax on 23 February, 2010

In the process, he relied on the decisions of the Rajasthan Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Kailash Kacchwaha 293 ITR 449 (Raj) and Eastern Construction Company Vs. ITO 59 TTJ 723 and Surendra Prasad Misra Vs. ITO 104 TTJ 292 (Lucknow) in his support. The CIT(A) did not allow the deductions on account of interest on depreciation out of the estimated profits @ 8% on the gross turnover.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Ram Misra,Sitapur vs Ito, Sitapur, Sitapur on 21 February, 2025

5. DR By order Assistant Registrar IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.537/LKW/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ram Misra v. ITO C/o Sanjay Saxena Sitapur 12, Pratap Enclave Bisrat G.T. Road Shahjahanpur TAN/PAN:ADJPM6858Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Sanjay Saxena, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date of hearing: 20 02 2025 Date of pronouncement: 21 02 2025 ORDER This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 24.05.2024, passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Surat for Assessment Year 2017-18.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1