In any case, expert advice obtained by the assessee from Vakharia & Associates lacks credibility and just because the assessee’s claim is supported by a chartered accountant’s opinion, this fact per se cannot absolve the assessee from penalty under section 271(1)(c). In the case of CIT Vs Escort Finance Limited (328 ITR 44), Hon’ble Delhi High Court has rejected assessee’s reliance on expert advice to avoid the penalty
These appeals involving certain common grounds regarding interpretation of section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and claimed for deduction under section 80-IA (4) of the Act. The same are being discussed by us with reference to the facts of the case for assessment year 2004-2005 in the case of Allcargo Global Logistics Ltd.
Tribunal after examining the evidence upheld the order of CIT(A) and concluded that the respondent was an investor in shares and entitled to be taxed under the head capital gains in respect of purchase and sale of shares. The Tribunal after examining the facts found that the respondent had not borrowed any funds for its investments and that the long terms gains were attributable to only shares of 4 companies and 3 of them were held for a period of about 5 to 12 years. So far as short terms capital gains were concerned the Tribunal held that about 93% of the short terms gain/loss was attributable to shares of six companies and in any case all the shares were held for periods ranging in excess of 1 month.
It is not the case of the assessee, at this stage, that the AO has not given sufficient opportunity; the case of the assessee is that the additional evidence produced before the CIT(A) ought to have been admitted under Rule 46A. If additional evidence is not admitted, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have furnished reasons for non-admission so that the assessee could explain properly as to whether the reasons for non-admission of additional evidence are in accordance with law or not. In the instant case, the ld. CIT(A) completely ignored to take notice of the additional evidence.
As regarding the other addition of Rs.34,82,972/- on account of Sundry creditors the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the same by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. 236 ITR 518 (SC) without going into the facts of the case. In this case the assessee has not filed even the details of the sundry creditors and when the Bench asked for the list of sundry creditors outstanding since several years, the ld. Counsel for assessee has submitted that the books of account relating to A.Yr. 1981-82 are already seized by the revenue and lying with the revenue authorities till now.
The requirement of recording of reasons and communication thereof has been read as an integral part of the concept of fair procedure and safeguard to ensure observance of the rule of law. We may point out that a ‘decision’ does not merely mean the ‘conclusion’. It embraces within its fold the reasons forming basis for the conclusion.[Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Punjab,(1995)1SCC 760(SC)].
Ultimately the assessing officer was of the opinion that a firm, which had the capacity to lend an amount of Rs. 71,50,000/- that too, to one of its partners or others is reasonably presumed to have the taxable income and if the assessee had never disclosed its expenditure or otherwise earlier and in such circumstances, if the officer records that he has reason to believe that assessee had taxable income and a non-filing of the return is not merely suspicion and therefore in bringing to tax such amount by re-opening.
Investigating tax-effective arrangements is a guide to help you recognise some of the common types of tax avoidance schemes so you can reject them and avoid the negative consequences associated with them. You should read this guide if you are considering entering into a tax-effective arrangement that will affect your tax liability.
List of beneficiary Maharashtra VAT dealers against whom police complaints lodged after 01.04.2011 – Download List – Source – http://mahavat.gov.in/Mahavat/index.jsp
It has been brought to our notice that some banks are insisting on opening of fresh accounts by customers when customers approach them for transferring their account from one branch of the bank to another branch of the same bank. In such cases, insisting on opening of a fresh account or subjecting the customers to the full KYC procedure again causes inconvenience to them resulting in poor customer service. Further, in case of banks that are CBS enabled, the KYC records of a customer could be accessed by any branch of the bank and hence it is not reasonable for such banks to subject the customer again to the full KYC procedure.
