Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.03 seconds)Commissioner Of Income Tax Xiii vs Naresh Kumar on 6 September, 2013
5. We have heard the rival contentions of the Ld. Representatives of both
the parties and have also gone through the record. We find that the Ld. A.O.
has not examined the item wise details of the expenditure for which the
provision was made by the assessee. He simply disallowed the entire
expenditure for which the provision as made without examining as to whether
the TDS provisions were attracted to each of the expenditure for which the
provision was made or that whether the TDS was deposited in relation to some
items before due date of filing of return and if the same would be allowable
expenditure in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the
case of "CIT vs. Naresh Kumar" (2013) 262 CTR (Del) 389 wherein the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the amendment made to section
40(a)(ia) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2010 which states that the due date of
deposit of TDS will be the date of filing of return u/s 139(1) is applicable
retrospectively and further that of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case
of "CIT v. Virgin Creations" wherein it has been held that the amendment to
section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010 is to be considered as retrospective
in as much as it is only toward mitigating a hardship and, thus, is to be
considered as curative in nature.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Virgin Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. on 18 February, 2011
5. We have heard the rival contentions of the Ld. Representatives of both
the parties and have also gone through the record. We find that the Ld. A.O.
has not examined the item wise details of the expenditure for which the
provision was made by the assessee. He simply disallowed the entire
expenditure for which the provision as made without examining as to whether
the TDS provisions were attracted to each of the expenditure for which the
provision was made or that whether the TDS was deposited in relation to some
items before due date of filing of return and if the same would be allowable
expenditure in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the
case of "CIT vs. Naresh Kumar" (2013) 262 CTR (Del) 389 wherein the
Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the amendment made to section
40(a)(ia) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2010 which states that the due date of
deposit of TDS will be the date of filing of return u/s 139(1) is applicable
retrospectively and further that of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case
of "CIT v. Virgin Creations" wherein it has been held that the amendment to
section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010 is to be considered as retrospective
in as much as it is only toward mitigating a hardship and, thus, is to be
considered as curative in nature.
Pride Foramer S.A. (Formerly Known As ... vs Acit, Spl. Range on 14 July, 2005
Reliance can also be placed on the
decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri S. Ganesh vs. ACIT" in ITA
No.527/M/2010 decided on 08.12.10 wherein the Tribunal has held that in the
absence of any material brought by the revenue authorities that the assessee has
received amount more than the professional fees which has been declared by him
in the P&L account and when the professional income declared by the assessee far
exceeds the professional fees shown in the AIR information, then additions solely
based on the AIR information are not sustainable.
1