Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.28 seconds)
Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd.,, ... vs The Acit.,(Osd)Range-1,, Ahmedabad on 19 October, 2022
cites
Section 14A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 206C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 3 April, 1997
taken into account in this assessment year. The Ld. A.R. submitted that it
is a well settle that only real income can be taxed by the Revenue and not
notional income. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 225 ITR 746 (SC) has also
stipulated the said principle.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 5 September, 2019
Ltd. vs. DCIT [2014] 43 taxmann.com 33 (Karnataka)
has taken a view in favor of the assessee while disagreeing with the decision
of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. That apart, since the SLP filed against the
said decision before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been admitted, the
issue in dispute being addition of Rs.6,58,289/- be decided accordingly.
Torrent Financiers vs Asstt. Cit on 29 June, 2001
In view of the fact that the appellant has sufficient interest
free funds available at its disposal, the entire addition of Rs.51,10,672/- ought
to have been deleted keeping in view the facts of the case and the legal
position in support thereof following the decision of Hon'ble ITAT
Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Torrent Financier's vs. Asstt. CIT (2001)
73 TTJ 624 (Ahd.).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. on 23 January, 2003
CIT vs. Indo Nippon Chemicals Ltd. - 261ITR 275 (SC);
ACIT vs. Narmada Chematur Petrochemcials - 327 ITR 369 (Guj);
ITO vs. Mamata Brampton Engg. P. Ltd. - ITA 2387/Ahd/2013
In light of the above, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly
deleted the impugned addition.
Income Tax Officer vs Anita Synthetics (P) Ltd. [Alongwith ... on 23 November, 2005
CIT vs. Indo Nippon Chemicals Ltd. - 261ITR 275 (SC);
ACIT vs. Narmada Chematur Petrochemcials - 327 ITR 369 (Guj);
ITO vs. Mamata Brampton Engg. P. Ltd. - ITA 2387/Ahd/2013
In light of the above, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly
deleted the impugned addition.
Commr.Of Income Tax,New Delhi vs M/S Eli Lilly & Company (India) P.Ltd on 25 March, 2009
The Ld. AR further submitted that unless date of challan in respect of
depositing TDS to the Govt. treasury is entered in Form 24Q / 26Q, TDS
return cannot be generated and consequently, Form 27A (i.e. form for
furnishing information with the return or statement of deduction of tax at
source filed on computer media) also cannot be generated. Section 273B
provides that in case reasonable cause is shown, penalty u/s 272A(2)
must not be levied. The Assessee could not file TDS returns in time on
account of reasons discussed hereinabove. Since the same is a reasonable
cause, penalty cannot be levied. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Eli Lilly And Co. (India) P.
Ltd. - 312 ITR 225(SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that there is no
loss to the revenue. The Assessee has deposited TDS along with interest.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Harsiddh Construction (P) Ltd. on 14 December, 1999
Thus, it has compensated the Government for late payment of TDS
which, in turn, has ensured that there is no loss to the revenue. Since
there is no loss to the revenue, penalty u/s 272A(2) of the Act cannot be
levied. The Ld. AR further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Gujarat High Court in case of CIT vs. Harsiddh Construction Pvt. Ltd. -
244 ITR 417 (Guj.)". The Ld. AR further submitted that it is merely a
technical or venial breach. In any case, late filing of TDS returns is
merely a technical or venial breach which does not warrant levy of
penalty u/s 272 of the Act.