Assessee was unable to produce list of documents for the gold, leading to its seizure under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. The gold was later inventoried and seized at the Customs House, and assessee recorded a voluntary statement.
Assessee contended that there was no violation of provisions of sec.269T since the security deposits were obtained through banking channels and were only adjusted towards the outstanding dues.
An employee should be employed for 300 days or more during the previous year should be applied cumulatively across the year of hiring and the following year, rather than restricting it to the first year.
It was held that in the original assessment under Section 143(1), the issue related to the deed of purchase of land was not looked into as the same was not reported in the assessee’s income before the Revenue.
When the corporate debtor failed to pay the outstanding power obligation, appellant subsequently cut off the electrical service. On the condition that the outstanding balance be paid, the power connection was restored. The supply was not discontinued.
Assessee then filed returns in response to the notice under Section 148, claiming a deduction under Section 80P. AO disallowed the deduction, stating that the returns were not filed within the due date under Section 139(1).
High Court failed to examine whether the complaint, even if taken at face value, established the personal liability of the directors under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900.
It was held that considering the provisions of CBDT Circular No. 1916 and the explanation provided by the assessee, the seized gold jewellery up to the specified thresholds for each family member should be treated as explained.
Where payment made to foreign entities by way of retainership fee did not result in commensurate business in USA in the year relevant to assessment year 2008-09, it did not imply that the expenditure incurred was not for the purpose of the assessee’s business. AO was directed to delete the addition of Rs.64,88,451/- by observing that the expenditure was disallowed u/s 14A.
Assessee had given cash to her employee who was the supervisor or the agent who in turn made payment to the sellers of the gold and therefore the same would not fall within the scope of section 40A(3) in view of the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. Joynal Abedin v. CIT.
