HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI WARD, RATNAGIRI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

194J (as per 26AS) are more than the receipts shown in ITR 4/5/6 (service receipts as per 26AS and Total revenue from operations in P&L account). Statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) along with a detailed questionnaire were issued and duly served upon the assessee. In response thereto

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR, MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

194J (as per 26AS) are more than the receipts shown in ITR 4/5/6 (service receipts as per 26AS and Total revenue from operations in P&L account). Statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) along with a detailed questionnaire were issued and duly served upon the assessee. In response thereto

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.342/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

194J. Failure to deduct and pay such tax in the Government exchequer entails, inter alia, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, as has been made by the authorities below in the instant case. 18. The ld. AR added another dimension to the issue by contending that the first judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics

KIRLOSKAR PROPRIETARY LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The details of expenses are tabulated in Para 5.2 at page 4 and 5 of the assessment order. The CIT(A) relying on the appellate order for assessment year 2009-10 allowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of Rs.4,68,336/- i.e. payment made to Quadrant Communication Ltd.; however