{"id":287188,"date":"2023-03-18T14:00:45","date_gmt":"2023-03-18T08:30:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=287188"},"modified":"2023-04-14T10:21:21","modified_gmt":"2023-04-14T04:51:21","slug":"rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","title":{"rendered":"RPC fee paid by Formula One not liable to be disallowed; Second proviso to S. 40(a)(i) be given retrospective effect: ITAT"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\tdocument.title = 'Disallowance of provision for expenses under Income-Tax Act retrospective: ITAT | SCC Blog'\n\tdocument.querySelector('meta[name=\"description\"]').setAttribute(\"content\", \"Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that second proviso to Clause (i) and Clause (ia) of S 40a of IT Act should be given retrospective effect.\");\n<\/script><\/p>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><b>Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi:<\/b> In three appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (&#8216;CIT&#8217;) for assessment year 2012-13 and for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively, the two-member bench of N. K. Billaiya (Accountant Member) and <b>Yogesh Kumar U.S.<\/b> (Judicial Member) quashed the disallowance\/addition made by the Assessing Officer which was sustained by the CIT(A) and held that the second proviso Clause (i) of Section 40(a) and second proviso to clause (ia) of Section 40(a) were inserted to remove an anomaly and were therefore curative and declaratory in nature. Hence, they had to be given retrospective effect.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The question for consideration is regarding disallowance under Clause (i) of Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001559811\">40(a)<\/a> of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002955939\">Income Tax Act, 1961<\/a> in respect of Race Promotion Contract (&#8216;RPC&#8217;) fees paid by Formula One World Championship Ltd. to United Kingdom without deducting the tax. It is the specific case of the assessee that no disallowance could be me made on RPC fees since the payee Formula One World Championship Ltd.(&#8216;FOWC&#8217;) had already been assessed on relevant income and tax thereon had been paid by Formula One Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., Noida. World Championship Ltd. directly. The CIT opined that no disallowance could be made in respect of RPC fees because the relevant income had been declared and assessed in the hands of the payee and tax thereon had been paid. However, CIT has accepted that disallowance should be restricted to the chargeable sum comprised in the grossed RPC fees as assessed in the hands of FOWC. Thus, CIT directed the disallowance.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Tribunal opined that no part of the RPC fee paid by the assessee is liable to be disallowed under clause (i) of Section 40(a) because the second proviso Clause (i) of Section 40(a) has been inserted w.e.f. 1-4-2020. The said proviso essentially provides that where the relevant income has been declared by the payee and tax thereon has been paid by him then no disallowance shall be made in the hands of the payer. This proviso is similar to the second proviso to clause (ia) of Section 40(a) which was inserted w.e.f. 1-4-2013. Both these provisos were inserted to remove an anomaly and were therefore curative and declaratory in nature. Hence, they had to be given retrospective effect.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">Jaiprakash Associates Ltd v DCIT, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/r8K4Oy3q\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2023 SCC OnLine ITAT 189<\/a>, decided on 13-03-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">*Order by: Yogesh Kumar U.S.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\">For Assessee: Advocate Ashwani Kumar Garg;<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\">For Department: CIT Ganga Dhar Panda.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><i>ITAT held that the second proviso to Clause (i) of Section 40(a) just like second proviso to clause (ia) of Section 40(a) was inserted to remove an anomaly and were therefore curative and declaratory in nature. Hence, it had to be given retrospective effect.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":284740,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[5291,34161,56044,30953,56043,4581,2621],"class_list":["post-287188","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-cit","tag-commissioner-of-income-tax","tag-formula-one-world-championship-ltd","tag-itat","tag-race-promotion-contract","tag-retrospective-effect","tag-Tax"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>RPC fee paid by Formula One not liable to be disallowed; Second proviso to S. 40(a)(i) be given retrospective effect: ITAT | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In three appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (\u2018CIT\u2019) for assessment year 2012-13\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"RPC fee paid by Formula One not liable to be disallowed; Second proviso to S. 40(a)(i) be given retrospective effect: ITAT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In three appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (\u2018CIT\u2019) for assessment year 2012-13\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-03-18T08:30:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-04-14T04:51:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-494.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/\",\"name\":\"RPC fee paid by Formula One not liable to be disallowed; Second proviso to S. 40(a)(i) be given retrospective effect: ITAT | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-494.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-03-18T08:30:45+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-04-14T04:51:21+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"In three appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (\u2018CIT\u2019) for assessment year 2012-13\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-494.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-494.png\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"RPC fee paid by Formula One not liable to be disallowed; Second proviso to S. 40(a)(i) be given retrospective effect: ITAT\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"RPC fee paid by Formula One not liable to be disallowed; Second proviso to S. 40(a)(i) be given retrospective effect: ITAT | SCC Times","description":"In three appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (\u2018CIT\u2019) for assessment year 2012-13","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"RPC fee paid by Formula One not liable to be disallowed; Second proviso to S. 40(a)(i) be given retrospective effect: ITAT","og_description":"In three appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (\u2018CIT\u2019) for assessment year 2012-13","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-03-18T08:30:45+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-04-14T04:51:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-494.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","name":"RPC fee paid by Formula One not liable to be disallowed; Second proviso to S. 40(a)(i) be given retrospective effect: ITAT | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-494.png","datePublished":"2023-03-18T08:30:45+00:00","dateModified":"2023-04-14T04:51:21+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"In three appeals filed by the assessee against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (\u2018CIT\u2019) for assessment year 2012-13","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-494.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-494.png","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/18\/rpc-fee-paid-by-formula-one-is-not-liable-to-be-disallowed-under-clause-i-of-s-40a-itat-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"RPC fee paid by Formula One not liable to be disallowed; Second proviso to S. 40(a)(i) be given retrospective effect: ITAT"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-494.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":284739,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/22\/in-view-of-moratorium-declared-by-nclt-all-the-proceedings-in-court-tribunal-cannot-continue-on-account-of-amendment-to-s-1786-it-act-itat-dismissed-appeals-filed-by-assess\/","url_meta":{"origin":287188,"position":0},"title":"In view of moratorium declared by NCLT, all the proceedings in Court, Tribunal cannot continue on account of Amendment to S. 178(6) IT Act: ITAT","author":"Apoorva","date":"February 22, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"ITAT reiterated that IBC has overriding effect on all the acts including Income Tax Act (\u2018IT Act\u2019) which has been specifically provided under Section 178(6) of the IT Act as amended w.e.f. 01-11-2016.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-494.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-494.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-494.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-494.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":250523,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/06\/30\/itat-validity-of-the-order-u-s-1433-of-income-tax-act-passed-by-an-officer-without-jurisdiction-the-limitation-of-second-statutory-notice-discussed\/","url_meta":{"origin":287188,"position":1},"title":"ITAT| Validity of the order u\/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, passed by an officer without Jurisdiction &#038; the Limitation of second Statutory notice, discussed","author":"Editor","date":"June 30, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Akshat Malpani\u2020","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Income Tax Appellate Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ITAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ITAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ITAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ITAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ITAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":6285,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2014\/09\/18\/proviso-to-section-113-of-income-tax-act-1961-not-clarificatory-or-retrospective-in-nature\/","url_meta":{"origin":287188,"position":2},"title":"Proviso to Section 113 of Income Tax Act, 1961 not clarificatory or retrospective in nature","author":"Sucheta","date":"September 18, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 5-judge bench of R.M. Lodha, CJ and J.S. Khehar, J. Chelameswar, Dr. A.K. Sikri and R.F. Nariman deciding the question of law as to whether the proviso appended to Section 113 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which was inserted in that Section by the Finance Act,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Supreme Court&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Supreme Court","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/supremecourt\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":234115,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/08\/18\/itat-treating-entire-bogus-purchases-as-the-income-of-the-assessee-when-not-appropriate-itat-explains\/","url_meta":{"origin":287188,"position":3},"title":"ITAT| Treating entire bogus purchases as the income of the Assessee when not appropriate? ITAT explains","author":"Editor","date":"August 18, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad: Dealing with the issue on accommodation entries and bogus purchases, the Tribunal has said that the entire purchase cannot be treated as a bogus purchase when there is evidence to establish that the payment was carried out through banking channels. The Assessee, in the present\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Income Tax Appellate Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ITAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ITAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ITAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ITAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/ITAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":291581,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/08\/itat-directs-assessing-officer-to-charge-gross-profit-rate-of-6-5-percent-on-bogus-purchases-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":287188,"position":4},"title":"Income Tax Appellate Tribunal directs Assessing Officer to charge assessee at gross profit rate of 6.5% on bogus purchases","author":"Apoorva","date":"May 8, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"ITAT said that the entire addition has been made by the AO as well as CIT based on guess work and estimation based on some alleged information received from Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra and from DGIT that \u201cthe assessee has taken bogus purchase bills without having taken any delivery\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-494.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-494.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-494.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-494.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":254042,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/10\/interest-free-funds-not-kept-in-separate-account-can-proportionate-disallowance-on-interest-under-section-14a-of-it-act-be-allowed-sc-explains\/","url_meta":{"origin":287188,"position":5},"title":"Interest free funds not kept in separate account. Can proportionate disallowance on interest under Section 14A of IT Act be allowed? SC explains","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"September 10, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201c\u2026 in taxation regime, there is no room for presumption and nothing can be taken to be implied.\"","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/287188","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=287188"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/287188\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/284740"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=287188"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=287188"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=287188"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}