JASPINDER SINGH KANG,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 26(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7695/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 June 2016AY 2010-1111 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not maintaining accounts on a cash basis, and since the professional fees pertained to services rendered in A.Y. 2010-11 and TDS was deducted in that year, the income accrued in A.Y. 2010-11. However, the addition was restricted to Rs. 2,50,000/- as net professional income.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not offer professional fees of Rs. 5,00,000/- earned in A.Y. 2010-11 in his return, claiming it was offered in the subsequent year on a cash basis. The Assessing Officer added this amount to the assessee's income for A.Y. 2010-11.

What were the issues?

Whether professional fees earned in A.Y. 2010-11 should be taxed in that year, and if so, whether the entire amount or only net income is taxable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 28,Section 143(2),Section 139(1),Section 139(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU, (AM)

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Mehta & Anuj Kisnadwala
For Respondent: Shri. Santosh Mankoskar
Hearing: 21/06/2016Pronounced: 30/06/2016

आदेश प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अऩीर थी / The Appellant प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. आमकय आम क्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- आमकय आम क्त / CIT 4.

More judgments on Section 28

All 1,686 judgments and leading authorities on Section 28 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →