The CBDT launches e-DRS 2022 vide Press Release dated 30.08.2024; A taxpayer can opt for e-dispute resolution against the ‘specified order’ under certain conditions – E-DRS application must be filed within one month from date of receipt of specified order – if appeal is pending, E-DRS application is to be filed on or before 30-9-2024.<\/span><\/p>\n The CBDT vide Press Release dated 20.08.2024 clarifies that All Indian citizens aren\u2019t required to obtain Income-tax Clearance Certificate before leaving country.<\/span><\/p>\n [2024]\u00a0 165 taxmann.com 679 (Mumbai – Trib.) Om Shanti Realtors vs. ITO<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n Where Assessing Officer disallowed interest paid by assessee to various loan creditors and treated amount of new loan taken by assessee during year as unexplained cash credit under section 68, assessee was granted permission to file additional evidence in support of its claim of identity of creditors and their creditworthiness as well as genuineness of transaction and case was restored to file of Assessing Officer for consideration of additional evidence to be filed by assessee.<\/span><\/p>\n [2024] 165 taxmann.com 670 (Madras-HC) Pandian Narayanan vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, NFAC, New Delh<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n Where Assessing Officer had not taken into consideration documentary evidence submitted by assessee in reply to notice issued under section 148A(b), Assessing Officer was to be directed to provide opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass fresh assessment order.<\/span><\/p>\n [2024] 163 taxmann.com 1155 (Delhi – Trib.) Raghav Technology (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n Section 151, read with section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Income escaping assessment – Sanction for issue of notice (Conditions precedent) – Assessment year 2010-11 – Assessing Officer received information from Investigation wing that search operation was carried out in case of one SKJ group of companies and it was noted from seized documents that assessee received accommodation entries from searched party – Accordingly, Assessing Officer made additions under section 68 and disallowed commission expenses for availing said accommodation entry – Whether since Assessing Officer had received approval from Principal Commissioner under section 151 for reopening of assessment wherein Principal Commissioner had merely written “Yes I am satisfied” without discussion, such approval could not be considere a valid approval – Held, yes – Whether thus, reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction – Held, yes [Para 9][In favour of assessee]<\/span><\/p>\n [2024] 165 taxmann.com 432 (Mumbai – Trib.) Western Outdoor Interactive (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n Export commission paid by assessee towards sales, marketing and customer support services rendered outside India by foreign agents cannot be treated as FTS and therefore no disallowance under section 40(a)(i) is warranted for reason that no tax is deducted at source<\/span><\/p>\n [2024] 165 taxmann.com 605 (Bombay-HC) Hemant Mahipatray Shah vs. Anand Upadhyay<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n Where complaint had been filed against company and its directors for delay in deposit of TDS deducted , which had already been deposited with interest as provided in section 201(1A), since no notice was issued to any of directors under section 2(35)(b) to treat them as principal officer of company and no averments had been made in complaint regarding \u2018Consent\u2019, \u2018Connivance\u2019 or \u2018negligence\u2019 as required under section 278B(2), complaint was bereft of essential ingredients and statutory requirements of section 278B were not fulfilled.<\/span><\/p>\n Where TDS had been paid in full, even with some delay, provision of section 276B would not be attracted and prosecution for failure to pay tax deducted at source could not be initiated where amount involved and period of default is not substantial and amount in default has also been deposited in meantime to credit of Government<\/span><\/p>\n [2024-TIOL-1372-HC-AHM-IT_ HONEST DEVELOPERS Vs. ITO]<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n The petitioner successfully challenged the reopening of its assessment for the Assessment Year 2016-17 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the issue of sundry creditors, already addressed in the original assessment and pending appeal before the CIT (Appeals), should not be re-examined. The Assessing Officer’s attempt to reopen the assessment based on the remaining 80% of the creditors was deemed a mere change of opinion, violating the principle of merger. The respondent’s justification for reopening the assessment, based on an audit objection and the claim that the remaining creditors required further verification, was rejected as flawed. The court quashed the reopening notice and the order rejecting the petitioner’s objection, finding no grounds for reassessment on this issue.<\/span><\/p>\n [2024-TIOL-1058-ITAT-DEL _ ITA No. 3915\/Del\/2023 INTERGLOBE ENTERPRISES PVT LTD Vs. ACIT Circle -10(1)]<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n It was submitted by the AR that the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 6580\/Del\/2019 in assessee\u2019s own case for Assessment Year 2016-17 has been pleased to hold that the credit of TDS should be allowed for the same year in which the income has been claimed to have accrued\/arising and included for determination of taxable income. A copy whereof has also been submitted before us. In addition to that it was submitted that even in appellant group company i.e\u00a0Interglobe Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT reported in taxmann.com 542,\u00a0the issue has been reiterated and decided that in terms of Sec. 199 of the Act r.w. Rule 37BA, the credit of TDS is to be allowed in the year in which income has offered for taxation. As the issue is squarely covered in assessee\u2019s own case and also in the case of the\u00a0group company,\u00a0we find that the income as was offered to tax in the year under consideration i.e Assessment Year 2021-22, the appellant had claimed credit of TDS of Rs. 67,90,143\/- in the year under consideration. Identical claim has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench in favour of the assessee in view of the provision of Sec. 199 of the Act r.w. rule 37BA of the Rules.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" CBDT launches e-DRS 2022 to minimize litigation and offer relief to eligible taxpayers The CBDT launches e-DRS 2022 vide Press Release dated 30.08.2024; A taxpayer can opt for e-dispute resolution against the ‘specified order’ under certain conditions – E-DRS application must be filed within one month from date of receipt of specified order – if appeal is pending, E-DRS application […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2061","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-direct-tax"],"yoast_head":"\nCBDT issues clarification in respect of income-tax clearance certificate (ITCC)<\/h3>\n
Important Judicial Precedents<\/h2>\n
1. ITAT allows additional evidence to be filed by assessee to establish genuineness of transactions<\/h3>\n
2. AO to provide hearing opportunity before passing order even if assessee didn\u2019t participate in proceedings: HC<\/h3>\n
3. Reassessment is without jurisdiction if PCIT granted approval by merely writing \u2018Yes, I am satisfied’: ITAT<\/h3>\n
4. Commission paid to foreign agents for rendering sales, marketing and customer support services isn\u2019t FTS: ITAT<\/h3>\n
5. Prosecution for delay in deposit of TDS couldn’t be initiated if tax was deposited with interest u\/s 201(1A): HC<\/h3>\n
6. Whether re-opening of assessment is valid where commenced based on change of opinion rather than based on any evidence indicating that taxable income escaped assessment – YES: HC<\/h3>\n
7. Whether credit of TDS should be allowed for same year in which income has been claimed to have accrued\/arising and included for determination of taxable income – YES: ITAT<\/h3>\n