Search Results For: Mitha Lal Meena (AM)


ITO vs. M/s Shanti Constructions (ITAT Agra)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 16, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 1, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 145(2) "Project Completion Method" vs. "Percentage Completion Method": Dept's argument that assessee should have declared profit on percentage completion method because according to AS-7, revised in 2002 with effect from 01.04.2003, the 'Completed Contract method' has been scrapped & ICAI guidelines prefer the percentage completion method is not acceptable (Realest Builders 307 ITR 202 (SC) distinguished, All judgements referred)

As regards to the adoption of project completion method of accounting by the assessee, it is seen that the assessee’s business came into existence from 11.03.2003 and since then it has been consistently following project completion method of accounting. The Ld. AR has contended that the assessee has never deviated from such method of accounting since the inception of the business and that the revenue had also accepted project completion method and profit shown by the assessee during the assessment proceedings for AY 2014-15 in assessee’s own case which also finds mention in para 6.2.1 of the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). It is well settled that the project completion method is one of the recognized method of accounting and as the assessee has consistently been followed such recognized method of accounting thus in the absence of any prohibition or restriction under the act for doing so, it can’t be held that the decision of the CIT(A) was erroneous or illegal in any manner. The judgement in the case of “CIT vs. Realest Builders & Services Ltd.”, (Supra) relied Id. DR on method of accounting is rather in favor of the assessee and against the revenue

ACIT vs. Manufax (India) S.B. (ITAT Agra)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 11, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 19, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11, 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(i)/ 40(a)(i): Entire law on whether commission paid by an Indian entity to foreign agents can be said to accrue in India and whether the assessee is obliged to deduct TDS thereon u/s 195 explained. All relevant judgements and CBDT Circulars Nos.7 dated 22.10.2009, 23 dated 23 July 1969, 163 dated 29th May 1975 and 786 dated 7th February 2000 considered

It is not disputed that that the withdrawal of the circulars No. 23 and 786 has been made on 22.10.2009 vide CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2009 and mere withdrawal of the circular does not negate the principles of income deemed to accrue or arise in India or outside India. The CBDT has not stated that any part of the circulars is contrary to law or that the circulars were wrongly issued or that the law has undergone changes holding their withdrawal. Thus, in respect of cases, which directly follow with the situations covered by the circulars, the liability to tax should continue to be in accordance with section 9 of the Act and its intent. The relevant sections, namely section 5(2) and section 9 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 not having undergone any change in this regard, the clarification in Circular No. 23 still prevails even after the withdrawal. No tax is therefore deductible under section 195 and consequently, the expenditure on export commission payable to a non-resident for services rendered outside India is not liable for withholding tax

Sachin Arora vs. ITO (ITAT Agra)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 7, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 5, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are distinct and separate charges. A nebulous notice which contains both charges is null and void ab initio (All judgements on the topic relied upon by the assessee and the department have been referred to and discussed)

It is quite clear, that `suppressio vari’, or ‘suppression of truth’, which has, in section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, as its equivalent, `concealment of income’, and `suggestio falsi’, literally, ‘suggesting or stating a falsehood’, which manifests itself as ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, are two distinctly separate charges; that leveling of either of these charges has to be explicitly brought to the notice/knowledge of the assessee, sans which, the assessee, under a nebulous notice containing both these charges, is rendered incapable of defending the charge per se. This would be in utter violation of the principles of natural justice, such notice being null and void ab initio. It is also pertinent to note at this juncture that the notice u/s 274 is a mandatory statutory notice without which, the initiation of penalty proceedings would be nugatory, nay, non est in the eye of the law

Top