News shortcuts: From the Courts | Top Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | Professional Updates | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax | PPE Safety Kit SITRA Approved | PPE Safety Kit
From the Courts »
 Shree Choudhary Transport Co vs. ITO (Supreme Court)
 MCA designates Special Court in Gauhati for Speedy Trial of Offences under Companies Act, 2013
 M/s. Gujarat Guardian Ltd. 4-7/C, DDA Shopping Centre New Friends Colony New Delhi Vs DCIT, Circle 10(2) New Delhi.
 Shiv Raj Gupta vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 ICAI-ASB seeking views of Practicing Chartered Accountants on Questionnaire on application of Accounting Standards by Micro and Small Non-Corporate Entities by August 10, 2020.
 No Capital Gain Tax on Conversion of Land held as Stock, Transferred upon HUF-partition: Karnataka HC
 Renu T Tharani vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 ITAT grants Tax Exemption to Charitable Trust engaged in providing Mid-Day Meal to School Students
 Gateway Leasing Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 ITAT orders to grant Interest on Refund under Section 244 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to Tata Steel
 Suresh Kumar Agarwal vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

Vardhman Automobiles (P.) Ltd., Opposite Air Force School, Old Delhi Road, Gurgaon- Vs. The ITO, TDS Ward, Gurgaon.
May, 25th 2020

Both appeals filed by assessee are against order of CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon dated 01.04.2015 & 07.04.2015 relating to assessment year 2011-12 against order passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) and 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) respectively. ITA Nos.3994 & 3995/Del/2015 Assessment Year 2011-12

ITA No.3994/Del/2015 [Assessment Year 2011-12]
2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1. “That the impugned order is bad in law as well as on merits.
2. That the impugned order and proceedings is without jurisdiction.
3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of documents and explanation filed, the liability for TDS of Rs.1,01,489/- on deemed dividend u//s 2(22)(e) for Rs.10,14,893/- and sustained by Ld.CIT(A) deserves to be deleted in law as well as on merits.

4. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, no demand u/s201 should have been created in view of demand created by the ITO, Ward-1(2), Gurgaon in case of Surbhi Jain.

5. That no interest 201(1A) should have been levied, without prejudice, the interest charged is excessive.”

3. Briefly in the facts of the case the assessee company had advance Rs.70 lakhs to its associated concerns namely Arihant Agency which was treated as deemed dividend to the extent of accumulated profits (Rs.10,14,893/-), as per provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee had not deducted tax at source on deemed dividend of Rs.10,14,893/- and Assessing Officer held the assessee to be in default u/s 201/201(1A) of the Act and raised demand of Rs.1,46,149/-. The CIT(A) upheld the said order of the AO against which the assessee is in appeal before us.

For more information

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us | PPE Kit SITRA Approved | PPE Safety Kit
Copyright 2020 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting