Mall
Shocksnmocks image
News Topics
Thakurani
A9 Top Floor C Block Community Center, Naraina Vihar
New Delhi, Delhi 110028
Facebook
Twitter
Google+

View and comment on the tax updates on a single page

Do you think that the tax news in simple language are better? Can you write them in simple language? and then broadcast? Then Write them at shocks n mocks.

Shocksnmocks image
  • Income Tax by Kanishka Mehta

    ITAT upheld penalty levied with reference to original return of income

    Case Law,Dec. 18, 2017

    Assessee’s return was processed u/s 143(1). Subsequently, in assessee’s search, assessee’s undisclosed bank accounts were detected with unexplained cash. AO reopened assessment. Assessee replied he had already filed return admitting the additional income. AO completed assessment, and imposed penalty. CIT(A) sustained penalty. ITAT upheld penalty as it was levied with reference to original return of income, and not consequent to disclosure.

    0 Upvote   | 0 Comments
  • Income Tax by Kanishka Mehta

    ITAT allowed the management consultancy fees

    Case Law,Dec. 18, 2017

    DQ Entertainment (International) Ltd’s reported international transactions with its AE. TPO held assessee could not prove services rendered by AE. TPO determined ALP at NIL and made addition of management consultancy fees paid to AE. DRP remanded issue to TPO, who passed the same order. ITAT held that since services had been rendered, ALP cannot be take at NIL. It allowed the management consultancy fees.

    0 Upvote   | 0 Comments
  • Income Tax by Kanishka Mehta

    ITAT restored matter to CIT(A) with direction to pass a speaking order

    Case Law,Dec. 18, 2017

    CIT(A) sent four notices to the assessee. CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders in appeals arising u/s 143(3)/153A. The ITAT held that while deciding the appeals, CIT(A) had not followed mandatory provisions, of first setting out points for determination and thereafter drawing reasons conclusions to be brought on record. Thus ITAT restored the matter to CIT(A) with the direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

    0 Upvote   | 0 Comments
  • Income Tax by Kanishka Mehta
    Case Law,Dec. 18, 2017

    In Treadstone International’s case, AO made an addition of Rs.36,92,935 on account of cash purchase of raw hide, u/s 40A(3). CIT(A) deleted the addition. ITAT held that payments for purchase of produces of animal husbandry were made to producer through commission agent. Thus rule 40A(3) cannot be invoked as it comes under exemption of rule 6DD(e).

    0 Upvote   | 0 Comments
  • Income Tax by Kanishka Mehta
    Case Law,Dec. 18, 2017

    M/s J.K. Cement was granted 5% interest subsidy and 50% exemption from electricity duty by Rajasthan Government. Assesse declared exemption on electricity duty as revenue receipt, and interest subsidy as capital receipt, utilized by assessee in payment of loan taken from financial institutions. AO treated interest subsidy as revenue receipt and made addition. CIT(A) treated it as capital subsidy and deleted addition. ITAT upheld CIT(A)’s order.

    0 Upvote   | 0 Comments
Income Tax by Kanishka Mehta

ITAT allowed commission as expenses incurred for business purpose

Ashiana Ispat Ltd was into manufacturing and trading of TMT bars and MS ingots. It claimed expenses under brokerage and commission at Rs. 95,44,810. AO asked it to produce commission agents for examination.Assessee did not produce any commission agent. AO disallowed commission. CIT(A) deleted the addition. ITAT held that books of account had been accepted, and thus allowed commission as expenses incurred for business purpose.

Case Law,Dec. 18, 2017
0 Upvote|   0 Comments
  • Income Tax by Kanishka Mehta
    Case Law,Dec. 18, 2017

    Assessee filed two miscellaneous applications against ITAT’s order, contending that transactions entered in regular Books of Account cannot be subject matter for addition in block period assessments. Assessee submitted that issue was not considered. ITAT recalled the appeals to consider the grounds afresh.

    0 Upvote   | 0 Comments
  • Income Tax by Kanishka Mehta
    Case Law,Dec. 18, 2017

    Assessee, proprietor of M/s Heeralal Chaganlal Tank, filed its return of income at Rs 19,55,434. AO held that assessee’s stock register was not verifiable. AO noticed that assessee had made purchases, which were held to be non-genuine purchases. AO disallowed 25% of unverifiable purchases and made addition. CIT(A) confirmed addition of Rs 1 lakh. ITAT directed AO to recalculate income by disallowing 15% of unverifiable purchases.

    0 Upvote   | 0 Comments
Income Tax by Kanishka Mehta
Case Law,Dec. 18, 2017

M/s Rochi Ram and Sons filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 38,81,914. AO noticed PF and ESI contribution were deposited by assessee after due date. AO u/s 43B r.w s 36(1)(va) disallowed the contribution made by assessee and made addition. CIT(A) deleted addition. ITAT upheld CIT(A)’s order.

0 Upvote   | 0 Comments
Income Tax by Kanishka Mehta

ITAT directed AO to recalculate income by making 15% disallowance

Friends International was in business of precious and semi precious stones. It filed its return declaring total income of Rs 18,08,070. AO u/s 145(3) rejected books of accounts. AO held that purchases from various parties for Rs. 30,96,965 could not be verified. AO disallowed 25% of unverifiable purchases and made addition. CIT(A) upheld AO’s action. ITAT directed AO to recalculate income by disallowing 15% of unverifiable purchases.

Case Law,Dec. 18, 2017
0 Upvote|   0 Comments
Loading...
Ask Question Create News
Book Virtuso Chat Click to Speak