If the unaccounted expenditure incurred is from the on money received by the assessee, then, the question of making any addition u/s 69C does not arise because the source of the expenditure is duly explained. It is only the ‘on money’ which can be considered for the purpose of taxation.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of plain and studded Gold and Silver jewellery. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2010 declaring taxable income of Rs.2,83,03,490/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has debited expenses under the head Foreign Agency Commission amounting to Rs.62,12,609/-.
GST was introduced on 1st of July, 2017. In the press release dated 29th August, 2017, it was reported that the total revenue of GST paid under different heads for the month of July, 2017 (upto 29th August) was Rs. 92,283 crore.
The conditions for invoking the principle of mutuality have been recently enumerated by the Apex Court in Bangalore Club’s case (supra) wherein after considering various other pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the High Court on the subject, it has been laid down that principle of mutuality relates to the notion that a person cannot make a profit from himself.
Where notice was not issued by assessing officer under section 143(2) before passing order under section 143(3) read with section 147, assessment made by him was bad in law. Provisions of section 292BB are not applicable where there is failure to issue notice under section 143(2).
As you are aware, the deployment of IT infrastructure to enable the digital monitoring of GST by the Department is in its final stages. On completion of deployment, the documents filed by the taxpayers at the GSTIN portal would be available to all the formations, upto the range level Inspector, for suitable verification.
The appellant, Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Revenue) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 30-6-2014, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-V, New Delhi under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) qua the assessment year 2010-11 on the ground that
High Court held that (I) We hold that e-recharge is not covered by the Item No. 133 of the Government Notification dated 28th March 2013 and that in any event, LBT cannot be levied on erecharge; (II) We reject the contention of the petitioner that the LBT is not payable on the SIM cards and […]
Where material was found in course of search at third party assessee that assessee had claimed bogus expenditure of 1 crore, towards which assessee had surrendered Rs. 50 lakhs and for balance 50 lakhs, it failed to provide any evidence, then it was made clear that onus of showing that balance expenditure was justified, lay upon assessee. Since assessee failed to discharge onus, AO was justified in bringing to tax the said expenditure.
SEBI (International Financial Services Centers) Guidelines, 2015 were issued on March 27, 2015. Subsequently, vide circular CIR/MRD/DSA/41/2016 dated March 17, 2016, SEBI has specified that Commodity Derivatives shall be eligible as securities for trading and the stock exchanges operating in IFSC may permit dealing in commodity derivatives.
