Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

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
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting