Ld. CIT(A) on pages 51-52 of his order that the assessee could not provide even the names and addresses of those parties to whom cash sales were claimed to have been made. This is the main basis on which Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the decision of the A.O. In our considered opinion, it cannot be said that in the case of cash sales, the assessee is bound to keep record of the names and addresses of the buyers. The judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court cited by the Ld. A.R. rendered in the case of R B Gurnam Fatehchand vs ACIT as reported in 75 ITR 33 also supports the case of the assessee. In that case also, the assessee was not in a position to give the addresses of the customers to whom cash sales were made. Under these facts, it was held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court that this cannot be the basis to reject the book results.
Notification No. 28/2012-Income Tax Whereas an Agreement and the Protocol between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital (DTAA) was signed at New Delhi on 26th July, 2011;
Notification No. 27/2012-Income Tax Whereas an Agreement and the Protocol between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the Republic of Estonia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income was signed at Tallinn, Estonia, on 19th day of September, 2011;
Tribunal decision in the case of ITO Vs Gyani Exports as reported in 94 TTJ 557 wherein, it was held that gain from foreign exchange fluctuation as eligible for deduction u/s 80HHC. No contrary decision was brought to our notice by Ld. D.R. and hence, on this issue also, we decline to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A).
It has not been disputed that the four sellers of the agricultural lands were neither examined nor their statements recorded, nor sec. 50C was invoked against them. Under these circumstances, the addition on the basis of a presumption which according to I.T. Act can only be raised against seller, cannot be made in the hands of the purchaser. Besides, we find merit in the argument of learned counsel for the assessee that provisions of sec. 142A cannot be applied against a transaction which is stock in trade. Order of CIT(A) is upheld as being on just and proper observation.
Amended section 10B as well as section 10A, 10AA, 10BA were introduced in the Act with a specific purpose. All these sections can be classified as ‘special provisions’ with regard to allowable deductions in certain areas. Said sections contain an in-built mechanism for computing the profits arising out of the business activities of the units/undertakings. It is a fact that above sections, including section 10B talk about ‘deductions’, but it is also a fact that still they are part of Chapter III i.e., the chapter that deals with income which do not form part of total income.
1. SEBI had notified SEBI (Issue and Listing of Debt Securities) Regulations in 2008 specifying norms for public issue of debt securities and privately placed listed debt securities. 2. With respect to public issue of debt securities, there is currently no specified standard format for the Application Form and Abridged Prospectus. This has resulted in different application forms and abridged prospectus being used in public issues of debt securities.
P resident of Supreme Court Advocates On Record Association (SCAORA) , Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain has written a detailed complaint letter to Chief Justice of India stating that the Honorable Supreme Court should consult the Bar Association before making practice-related decisions. We are attaching below the letter which is worth reading :-
