As regards to issue of allowability capital loss incurred by assessee on assigning of debts due from certain debtors, it was concluded that merely because assignee company did not disclose business income in their income tax returns for subsequent years in year of recovery of debts, that would not prejudice right of assessee company to claim capital loss in the year of extinguishment of their right in favour of assignee company. Hence, events that had happened after the date of assignment of debt, could not be used to judge the transaction, which had happened on the date of assignment.
Since assessee did not receive any sum over and above the value of its investments from partnership firm on revaluation of assets, therefore, there could not be any levy of capital gains or any levy in the nature of income upon retirement of assessee from firm within the meaning of Section 2(24) in the hands of assessee.
Price Waterhouse & Co. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Conclusion: Since the addition on basis for which AO reopened assessment had already been disclosed by assessee in the return of income filed by him u/s 139(1), AO having not carried out the scrutiny assessment within the prescribed statutory limit, could not be given another innings for […]
Loan amount which was never claimed by assessee as expenditure, waiver of same could not amount to cessation of trading liability and was not chargeable to tax under section 41(1).
Since there was no separate payment made for the purchase of software embedded in mobile phones, therefore, no TDS to be deducted under Section 195 for software embedded in mobile phones imported by assessee during the previous year.
Where there was difference of amount in question somewhere as per cash in hand as per books of account and lesser cash as per seized documents, it would also not suffice to make addition under section 68 or 69A because every person is at liberty to spend their own amount anywhere as per his choice and assessee had not claimed any deduction in this case. Examining the case of assessee from every possible angle, addition of Rs.37,30,710/- was wholly unjustified.
Payment paid by company to ESI department for delay in payments was nothing but compensation and was compensatory in nature. Thus, the impugned amount was to be allowed u/s 37(1).
Once satisfaction note for initiation of proceedings against the assessee under section 158BD was furnished to assessee, the entire grievance of assessee were disposed off and as per AO, in any case incriminating documents and undisclosed assets belonging to assessee were found and seized during search operations conducted by Revenue on Mr. M and hence proceedings initiated against assessee under section 158BD were valid.
