Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.28 seconds)Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 13 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 234D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Gurgaon vs Acit, New Delhi on 15 January, 2021
31. Ground No. 2 is with regard to advance received from clients being added as
income of the assessee. We have while considering the same issue for AY 2010-11
have held that the addition cannot be sustained by placing reliance on the decision
of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Deloitte Haskins & Sells
23 ITA Nos.291, 289 & 292Mum/2024
Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP
(supra). The facts for the year under consideration are identical and therefore we
hold that the AO is not correct in treating the advance amount as the income of the
assessee since has not rendered services with regard to the advance received.
Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the addition made in this regard.
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Shri Praveen Saluja, 41 Taxc/89/2018 ... on 15 May, 2019
24. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee went on
appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim by
placing reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT
vs Dinesh Kumar Goel, 197 taxman 375(Delhi).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Punjab Tractors Co-Operative ... on 19 August, 1997
28. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before
us. The assessee-firm is a Chartered Accountants rendering professional
services. As per Balance Sheet as on 31.3.2011 the advance outstanding
was Rs. 64,39,989/-. The assessee contended that the amount of advances
were received from clients for the services not yet rendered, therefore, the
income is not accrued and accordingly, the advance cannot partake the
character of income. Further, the assessee submitted that all advances
cannot be held as income. In other words, the receipt resumes the character
of income only when the services are rendered. The assessee is following
the same method of accounting consistently for several years. The assessee
placed reliance on the judgment of P& H High Court in the case of CIT vs
Punjab Tractors Co-operative Multi-purpose Society Ltd, 234 ITR 10,
decision of this Tribunal in S. Priyadarsan vs JCIT, 73 TTJ 738 and on
identical issue in the case of associated concern of the assessee viz. A.F.
Ferguson & Co., in I.T.A. No.7792/Mum/2004 dated 30.1.2008, ITAT
Mumbai. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the
submission of the assessee that the advance cannot be treated as income in
the hands of the assessee unless the services are rendered by the assessee.
The Assessing Officer has not made out a case that advances received in
question were towards the services rendered by the assessee. The Id. DR
also could not bring any evidence to controvert the submissions made by
20 ITA Nos.291, 289 & 292Mum/2024
Deloitte Haskins and Sells LLP
the assessee. In view of the above facts and placing reliance on the
decisions relied upon by the assessee cited (supra) we do not find any
reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and accordingly we uphold
the same.
Nqa Quality Systems Registrar Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 December, 2004
(b) if his stay in the other State is for a period or periods aggregating 183
days or more in any twelve-month period commencing or ending in the
fiscal year concerned; in that case, only so much of the income as is
derived from his activities performed in that other State may be taxed in
that other State.