Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.33 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 19 April, 1965
7. Ground no.6 of the Revenue's appeal for A.Y. 06-07 is against deleting
the addition of Rs.3,89,356/- made u/s. 40(ia) of the IT Act. The A.O.
observed that the appellant had debited Rs.3,89,356/- as brokerage. Hence,
it had shown liability in respect of TDS payable. As per A.O., the assessee
was liable to deduct TDS u/s. 194H of the IT Act. The appellant had not
furnished any proof of payment of TDS. Therefore, he disallowed Rs.
3,89,356/- u/s. 40(ia) of the IT Act. The ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal on
the ground that when income of the assessee has been directed to compute
@ 0.25% on total turnover of Rs. 1,08,76,86,861/-, which was worked out at
Rs. 27,19,217/-. The ld. CIT(A) had allowed all the expenses claimed by the
appellant by relying upon the decision in case of Bharat A Master vs. ITO in
ITa No. 177/Ahd/2003 dated 29.02.2008 and Hon'ble Supreme Court decision
in case of Poona Electric vs. CIT 57 ITR 521(SC). After considering the
I T A No s . 2 52 5 , 25 26, 26 3 5 & 2 6 36 / Ah d /0 9
A. Y . 2 00 5- 06 & 0 6- 07 Page 12
orders of the A.O. and submission of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has
directed to compute the income on the basis of 0.25% on total turnover and
no benefit of any expenditure would be allowed. Thus, we also confirm the
order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, Revenue's appeal on this
ground is dismissed.
Section 2 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi vs Air France on 13 April, 2009
3. Now the assessee is before us. Ld. Counsel for the appellant
contended that the reasons recorded by the A.O. for issuing bogus bills and
getting commission on it. But, the A.O. had not made any addition on account
of under the head 'Commission income" on which he had reopened the case
u/s. 147. When there is no addition on the basis of reason to believe in
assessment order by the A.O., then no addition under any other head, can
be made by the A.O. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High
Court decision in case of CIT-II vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani in Tax Appeal No.
964 of 2011 TO Tax Appeal No. 967 of 2011, order dated 29.01.2013,
wherein Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had considered the Bombay High Court
decision in case of CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Limited (2011) 331 ITR 236, in which
Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that the Assessing Officer does not assess
the income which he had reasons to believe had escaped assessment and
which forms the basis of a notice u/s. 148, it is not open to the Assessing
I T A No s . 2 52 5 , 25 26, 26 3 5 & 2 6 36 / Ah d /0 9
A. Y . 2 00 5- 06 & 0 6- 07 Page 9
Officer to assess independently any other income which does not form the
subject matter of the notice. Therefore, it was argued that the addition made
on the basis of any other income which was not formed the subject matter of
the notice is invalid. Thus, the order of the A.O. may be cancelled. At the
outset, ld. CIT D.R. vehemently argued that reopening u/s. 147 is valid as no
scrutiny assessment was made in this case. The notice was issued within
four years from the end of the assessment year. The copy of reasons were
supplied to the appellant. There was no objection filed by the appellant before
the A.O. He made compliance of the notice issued by the A.O. regularly
without objecting the reopening. He further relied upon the decision of
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Gala Gymkhana (P.)