Assessee claimed that cash sales were recorded and backed by VAT invoices, and that AO had misread e cash balance figures. Audited financials, VAT returns, and confirmations were placed on record, which AO had not examined.
Reassessment proceedings could not be sustained in respect of other issues raised in the audit except in respect of two specific expenditure heads: processing charges and professional fees as the same could be treated as “information” under Section 148A.
Capital expenditure on leasehold premises, such as plumbing, partitions, flooring, and electrical fittings, qualified as improvements to a building used for business purposes. Therefore, depreciation deduction for improvements made to leasehold premises was allowable.
CIT(Appeals) failed to admit the additional evidences which went to the root of the matter for determining the issue of taxability of long term capital gains as was made by AO ignoring the submissions of assessee. Therefore, the case was remanded to AO for fresh assessment, with liberty to assessee to furnish evidence.
They also explained that the renting service, including furniture, was approved by the SEZ Unit Approval Committee for use in authorized operations. Department argued that furniture did not fall under immovable property and therefore could not be covered under the Renting of Immovable Property service category.
Attachment order for freezing of bank accounts of assessee was lifted on the condition that the taxpayer pays 20% of the disputed demand in instalments and if the taxpayer defaulted on any instalment, the attachment would stand revived automatically.
Tribunal also observed that assessee’s change in classification from 25132030 to 25132090 after the notification indicated an intent to circumvent the export restriction. It further held that reliance on internal communications not mentioned in the show cause notice did not alter the fact that the export violated DGFT policy.
Department argued that the inspection certificates appeared forged and misleading. It was pointed out that the inspection timings shown were not physically possible, and the certificates were issued by an inspector whose link to the issuing agency was unclear.
Assessee was implicated in a gold smuggling case after Avijit Sarkar was caught at Kolkata Airport by Customs officials. Acting on intelligence about ground staff involvement, officers recovered four gold bars weighing 3,000 grams and worth Rs. 82.5 lakh from Sarkar’s shoes.
Once assessee had filed the Return of Income, in response to notice, u/s 142(1), (although it was late), then it was mandatory for AO, in order to acquire the jurisdiction, to make the assessment on the assessee, to issue the notice u/s 143(2).
