The issue under consideration is whether the AO’s order for rejecting the application for issuance of a certificate for lower deduction or nil deduction u/s 197 is justified in law?
ITAT states that, in the present case, it is an admitted position that the AO made the addition by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act which are applicable to the expenses considered to be excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods/services or facilities for which the payment is made.
The issue under consideration is whether the petitioner firm had correctly accounted for the deposits made in its account during demonetization?
Once assessee has provided a reasonable explanation about ownership of account, then the onus was on the Assessing Officer to establish that the account belongs to the assessee. The principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT Vs. United Commercial and Industrial Company Limited wherein, it was held that where prima-facie inference on facts is that the assessee explanation is probable, the onus will shift to the revenue.
The assessee has sold the goods to the Associated Enterprise on principal to principal basis and has received sales consideration. The royalty is payable on the basis of the goods manufactured. Accordingly, addition made by the AO/TPO by determining the arms’ length price of royalty on exports to the Associated enterprise at ‘NIL’ is deleted.
Since there was no material to infer that client code modification had been done by assessee with malafide purpose of shifting of the profit or evasion of the tax hence, assessment could not be reopened under section 147 in absence of any tangible material to infer that income escaped in the case of assessee.
Since assessee association was providing laboratory test services and consultancy services in accordance with its charitable objects, therefore, activities could not be held to be rendered in relation to any trade, commerce or business as such activities were undertaken by assessee association in furtherance of its main objects which were undisputedly of charitable nature and which was not an activity of trade, commerce or business with main object of earning profit. AO was directed to allow exemption under section 11 and 12 with consequent benefits to assessee.
There could not be any inherent right to compassionate appointment but rather, it was a right based on certain criteria, especially to provide successor to a needy family. This has to be in terms of the applicable policy as existing on the date of demise, unless a subsequent policy was made applicable retrospectively.
Supreme Court states that as per section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the court within whose jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account is situated, will have jurisdiction to try the offence, if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account.
The Income Tax Department, on the basis of actionable intelligence received, conducted search and seizure actions on 06-10-2020 in Patna, Sasaram and Varanasi in the case of a person, who is in the business of mining and hotel industry. Search was also conducted in the case of a Chairman of a large cooperative bank.
