TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court allows tax case appeal, remands for reevaluation by Assessing Officer. Substantial questions of law left open.</h1> <h3>Mr. Dilip Kumar Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-11, Chennai</h3> Mr. Dilip Kumar Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-11, Chennai - TMI Issues:- Disallowance of expenses for lorry hire- Overlooking settlement of accounts- Failure to consider Section 194C(6) exemptionIssue 1: Disallowance of expenses for lorry hire:The appellant challenged the disallowance of expenses for lorry hire under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, contending that the expenses were incurred in connection with the business of goods transporters/carriers. The dispute arose from the Assessing Officer's addition of Rs. 21,12,000 to the returned income, claiming the appellant did not furnish particulars for the expenses incurred. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating the appellant failed to substantiate the claim despite opportunities. The Tribunal upheld the dismissal, considering the settlement of accounts in April 2014 and the net profit earned by the appellant. The appellant filed a miscellaneous application pointing out a factual mistake in the settlement date, but the Tribunal rejected it. The High Court found the Assessing Officer failed to thoroughly examine the details produced by the appellant, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.Issue 2: Overlooking settlement of accounts:The appellant argued that the Tribunal overlooked the correct settlement date of accounts in April 2012, as opposed to April 2014 mentioned in the remand report. The High Court noted the discrepancy and emphasized the importance of accurate facts in determining the disallowance of expenses. The Tribunal's reliance on the incorrect settlement date was deemed a typographical error, leading to the remand of the matter for reevaluation by the Assessing Officer.Issue 3: Failure to consider Section 194C(6) exemption:The Standing Counsel for the Revenue highlighted Section 194C(7) requirements for claiming a deduction under Section 194C(6), emphasizing the need for compliance with prescribed procedures. The High Court referred to a previous decision rejecting the contention that non-compliance with Section 194C(7) would disentitle the assessee from benefits under Section 194C(6). Even if the appellant did not furnish required particulars, the maximum penalty would be Rs. 200 per day of non-compliance. Consequently, the High Court remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the procedural law's inability to negate benefits under Section 194C(6).In conclusion, the High Court allowed the tax case appeal, setting aside previous orders and remanding the matter for reevaluation by the Assessing Officer to ensure a thorough examination of the details provided by the appellant regarding freight charges. The substantial questions of law were left open, and no costs were awarded in this judgment.
TaxTMI 