Assessee is partnership firm engaged in ginning of cotton. It purchases cotton in cash from agriculturist through the Adatya claimed that it is payment to agriculturist and no disallwance be made u/sec. 40 A(3) of Act. Agriculturist confirm this transcation and accepted that they have received payment in cash. Ao has disallowed U/Sec 40 A(3) on the ground that it is not transcation between agriculturist and not covered by exception provided in Rules. Is action of AO is legally justified
► Read Answer
Is there any remedy for 36(1)(va), if appeal filed before checkmate judgement of supreme court.
► Read Answer
Assesseee is promoter and developers. Has taken the loan from Bank. Bank has stiputed condition that amount will be used for the project only. However, considering the status of the project, assessee has advanced the loan to its associate firm and earn the interest. Assessee has claimed the interest as part of cost of construction after reducing the interest received from associate concern. AO has not appreciated the concept Netting of Interest and made the addition on the decision of Tuticorin Alkali 227 ITR 172. Whether assessee can take a stand in appellate proceedings that since there is direct nexus…
► Read Answer
The assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of machine tools. The A.O. had made an addition of Rs. 14.5 lakhs on account of disallowance of investments and irrecoverable loans and advances written off on the ground that the said sums are given to subsidiary of the assessee company as capital investment and loan and hence are capital in nature and neither the said amount were taken as part of income in any of the earlier years without appreciating the submissions given by the assessee that amount paid by the assessee co clearly in the…
► Read Answer
Assesee is LLp and engaged in the business of call center. For procuring business, assessee has paid Re. 5 lakh as commission after deduction TDs and claimed it as deduction as business expenditure. Assessee has given confirmation from the party along with PAN n paid the amount by account payee cheques. Ao issued summons U/sec 131 to the Act, to the party, mail ID is block. Ao has issued show cause to the assessee asking as to why this expenditure should not be disallow as party has not filed copy of IT return of the recipient . Whether action of…
► Read Answer
CELEBRITY CRICKETOR WITH AN INTENT TO TO MAINTAIN GOOD IMAGE/SOCIAL STATUS AND TO GAIN MORE FOLOWERS AND NEW BRAND ENDORSMENT PURCHASES EXPENSIVE WATCH AND CLOTHES FOR HIM. Q1. CAN SUCH PURCHASE OF CLOTHS / WATCH BE CLAIMED AS EXPENSE DEDUCTION FROM BRAND ENDORSMENT INCOME AND CRICKET INCOME. CRICKETOR TAKES SHOULDER INSURANCE KNEE INSURANCE LEG INSURANCE I.E. IMPORTANT BODY PART REQUIRED TO PLAY CRICKET AND ALSO WITH A CLAUSE THAT IN CASE OF INJURY TO ANY SUCH PART DUE TO WHICH HE IS NOT ABLE TO PLAY MATCH INSURANCE COMPANY WILL REPAY. Q2 - CAN SUCH INSURANCE AMOUNT BE CLAIMED AS…
► Read Answer
Sir, I have made cash payment of Rs. 16,000 and Rs.11,700 (payment above 10,000/- ) in a day to my workers on account of wages. Whether, this can be subject to addition u/s 40A(3). Kidly communicate supporting case law on the subject.Assessment Year 2019-20.
► Read Answer
SAD Refund was applied 6 to 7 years ago with the Custom Authorities.The said amount was shown as Refund Receivable in the Balance Sheet in the year of payment of SAD custom Duty. However , the same was never offered as income. Now Custom department has rejected the said Refund application and the said amount has been debited to Profit and Loss Account.Whether this amount is allowable in current year in view of Provisions of Section 43-B,Bad Debts and Prior Period Expenses.
► Read Answer
Whether employees contribution towards pf and esi paid after due date as precribed under the prescribed under the law is disallowable u/s 36 of the IT Act, 1961 though paid within due date of filing return as per S43B of the It Act 1961
► Read Answer
Cash Purchases U/sec. 40A(3)