|
III. Direct Taxes Case Laws:
1. DCIT Vs. Page Point Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., I.T.A. No. 3984/Del/2013, Date of Order: 22.05.2015, ITAT - Delhi
Whether
the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing
Officer on account of late deposit of employee's contribution towards
provident fund in view of the provisions of section 2(24)(x) read with
section 36(1)(va) of the Income tax Act, 1961.
Held No.
The
disallowance is not made by the AO on the ground that there is no proof
of making such payment but disallowance is made only on the ground that
these payments have been made beyond the due dates of making these
payments as stipulated under the respective statute. Thus, it was not an
issue that the payments were not made by the assessee on the dates
which have been stated to be the dates of deposits in the assessment
order. In such a scenario, according law clarified by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of CIT Vs Vinay Cement Ltd, that no disallowance could
be made if the payments are made before the due date of filing the
return of income.
(Please click here for judgment)
2. M/s Marvel Chemicals (I) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, I.T.A. No. 1324/Del/2013, , Date of Order: 22.05.2015, ITAT - Delhi
Whether the provisions of section 271(1)© shall apply under circumstances where S. 271AAA prevails.
Held No.
It was
submitted that section 271AAA of the Act has been inserted w.e.f
01.04.2007 and Sub-section (3) of the said section provides that no
penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of section
271 of the Act shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of
undisclosed income where search has been initiated u/s 132 of the Act on
or after the 1st day of June, 2007. It was further submitted that the
penalty was not leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act because the search
took place on 04.09.2008 and that the penalty, if any was to be levied,
it was leviable u/s 271AAA of the Act. It was contended that in the
instant case no penalty was leviable as per the provisions of
Sub-section (2) of section 271AAA of the Act because the assessee
substantiated the manner in which the amount on account of share capital
was received and gave all the information during the course of
assessment proceedings, therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act
levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified.
(Please click here for judgment)
|
New User? 
Subscribe Now