https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458609 ITAT Chandigarh remanded two issues to CIT(A) for proper adjudication. First, regarding Section 40A(3) additions for cash payments of exactly Rs. 20,000 totaling Rs. 3,80,000, CIT(A) failed to address whether payments equal to the prescribed limit fall within the disallowance provision. Second, for Section 40(a)(ia) additions concerning TDS under Section 194C, CIT(A) casually rejected submissions without determining the nature of expenses or TDS applicability. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for interest on delayed service tax payment under Section 37(1), distinguishing it from penalties for law infringement. Additionally, the Tribunal permitted set-off of surrendered amount of Rs. 19,15,005 against sustained additions, following Delhi HC precedent in Akme Projects Ltd. en-us Tue, 29 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Nov 2024 19:56:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458609 ITAT Chandigarh remanded two issues to CIT(A) for proper adjudication. First, regarding Section 40A(3) additions for cash payments of exactly Rs. 20,000 totaling Rs. 3,80,000, CIT(A) failed to address whether payments equal to the prescribed limit fall within the disallowance provision. Second, for Section 40(a)(ia) additions concerning TDS under Section 194C, CIT(A) casually rejected submissions without determining the nature of expenses or TDS applicability. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for interest on delayed service tax payment under Section 37(1), distinguishing it from penalties for law infringement. Additionally, the Tribunal permitted set-off of surrendered amount of Rs. 19,15,005 against sustained additions, following Delhi HC precedent in Akme Projects Ltd. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 29 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458609