This amount of tax had been deposited by assessee from its own pockets and the GST on the amount of notice pay recovery was deposited by assessee as and when such recovery was made.
Assessee clarified that Form ST-3 was incorrect as some of the invoices inadvertently remained unaccounted for the said period and the correct amount of credit was carried forward in Form TRAN-1.
Section 145(3) couldn’t be invoked without identifying specific defects in the books of accounts and that mere suspicion of increased cash sales was not sufficient to make an addition under Section 68.
Since reasons recorded by AO to form prima facie conclusion that there was likelihood of any gain on account of revenue expenses incurred by assessee was also without any basis in the absence of any fresh tangible material available with the respondent AO as the fact remained that assessee had unrealized gain and unrealized loss which was not claimed and duly reflected in the computation income as assessee had claimed only bank charges expenditure for hedging of foreign currency.
The company had canceled its CST registration effective from March 31, 2014, and argued that it had not imported any goods from other states or countries for incorporation in its works contracts.
Assessee-company was involved in manufacturing tractors, agricultural equipment, and spare parts, also operated a technology center providing IT and engineering services to Deer Associates.
PCIT was not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 in the case of Bank of Maharashtra allowing deduction under Section 36(1)(via) as Assessing Officer’s (AO) assessment order was not erroneous, even if it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Aggrieved by the order passed by AO, assessee moved on with an appeal to CIT(A), where assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment, arguing that Section 148 was not justified.
It was held that transactions and FAR of assessee were similar to AY 2021-22 and as per the records brought to our notice, there was no change in the activities carried out by assessee in the current assessment year and subsequent assessment years.
Addition made in the case of assessee was held to be unjustified. Assessee had established and satisfied all the three ingredients being identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of share capital contribution to explain credit in terms of provisions of section 68.
