{"id":13724,"date":"2016-05-17T11:53:54","date_gmt":"2016-05-17T06:23:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=13724"},"modified":"2016-05-17T11:53:54","modified_gmt":"2016-05-17T06:23:54","slug":"cit-vs-s-ganesh-bombay-high-court-inability-of-the-assessee-an-advocate-to-reconcile-the-professional-receipts-with-the-tds-certificates-and-to-give-a-detailed-party-wise-breakup-of-fees-receipts-do","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-s-ganesh-bombay-high-court-inability-of-the-assessee-an-advocate-to-reconcile-the-professional-receipts-with-the-tds-certificates-and-to-give-a-detailed-party-wise-breakup-of-fees-receipts-do\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. S. Ganesh (Bombay High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>(i) The assessee challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax in confirming the addition of Rs.47,37,000 made by Assessing Officer on account of non-reconciliation of professional receipts with TDS certificates. Insofar as that aspect is concerned, the Tribunal considered this submission of both sides and found that the assessee was engaged as an Advocate to argue the matters by what is popularly known as Advocates on record or instructing Advocates method, meaning thereby the client does not engage the assessee directly but a professional or the Advocate engaged by the client requests the assessee to argue the case. The brief is then taken as the counsel brief. That being the practice, the assessee gave an explanation that the breakup as desired cannot be given and with regard to all payments. It is pointed out that at times, assessee receives fees directly from the clients or from the instructing Advocates or Chartered Accountants if such professionals have collected the amounts from the clients.<\/p>\n<p>(ii) Under these circumstances, the breakup as desired cannot be placed on record. An explanation which has been given by the assessee and accepted in the past has been now accepted by the Tribunal once again. Since it is accepted for the Assessment Year 2006-07, in the peculiar facts, in relation to the present assessee, we are of the view that this Appeal does not deserve to be entertained. It does not give rise to any substantial question of law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The assessee was engaged as an Advocate to argue the matters by what is popularly known as Advocates on record or instructing Advocates method, meaning thereby the client does not engage the assessee directly but a professional or the Advocate engaged by the client requests the assessee to argue the case. The brief is then taken as the counsel brief. That being the practice, the assessee gave an explanation that the breakup as desired cannot be given and with regard to all payments. It is pointed out that at times, assessee receives fees directly from the clients or from the instructing Advocates or Chartered Accountants if such professionals have collected the amounts from the clients. Under these circumstances, the breakup as desired cannot be placed on record<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-s-ganesh-bombay-high-court-inability-of-the-assessee-an-advocate-to-reconcile-the-professional-receipts-with-the-tds-certificates-and-to-give-a-detailed-party-wise-breakup-of-fees-receipts-do\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13724","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court","judges-g-s-kulkarni-j","judges-s-c-dharmadhikari-j","section-39","section-194-j","counsel-percy-pardiwala","court-bombay-high-court","catchwords-tds-reconciliation","catchwords-undisclosed-income","genre-domestic-tax"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13724","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13724"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13724\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13724"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13724"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13724"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}