Existence of books of account maintained by assessee was a condition precedent for making addition under section 68. Where assessee had not maintained books of account, there was no legal scope to invoke provisions of section 68 and as such, addition made on such premise was to be deleted.
Even if the assessee was unrepresented, CIT(A) should have adjudicated the issues before him based on the case record before him but unfortunately, CIT(A) chose not to do so and dismissed the assessee’s appeal without examining the case on merits. Therefore, the condonation of delay was allowable and substantial justice required that the issues should be re-examined by CIT(A).
Since there was no valid transfer of land in question by assessee to the partnership firm of M/s. V Developers in the year under consideration giving rise to any capital gain and the transfer of the said land having validly taken place only in the previous year relevant to AY 2012-13 by assessee to M/s. V Developers, the capital gain arising from the said transfer was not chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee for AY 2012-13 as duly declared by assessee in his return of income for AY 2012-13.
Penalty was not to be imposed on assessee as demand did not form part of the notice dated 13.08.2020 and opportunity of hearing was not provided to assessee.
When the unit was de-bonded and no dues certificate was issued to the assessee, it was the duty of the officer, who gave no dues certificate to verify the contents whether any dues liability was pending against the assessee or he had correctly declared the true facts for de-bonding of unit. When the concerned officer had de-bonded the unit along with no dues certificate, allegation of suppression could not be alleged against assessee in this case.
Purchase and sale of shares were arranged transactions to create bogus capital short term capital loss in the garb of real transactions with the sole motive to claim short term capital loss so as to evade tax. Hence the same was not allowable under section 28.
When the issue-in-dispute was in respect of the receipt of loan and source of which was already available on record, it would not become undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee, as source of the same, was already within the knowledge of the Income Tax Department.
Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific Inc. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: TDS credit can be claimed in the country in which the related income was offered to tax. Held: Assessee derived revenue from the grant of exclusive rights to Turner International India Private Limited (TIIPL’) in India to sell advertising on the products and to distribute […]
Akshay Khetter pal Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Penalty u/s 112(a) of the Custom Act was sustainable as penalty was penal in nature and the payment made for discharge of punishment for violation of prohibited acts and/or restriction(s) imposed under the provisions of law, could not be considered as compensatory in natur and not allowable […]
E. K. RAJAN Vs Authorized Officer (Kerala High Court) Conclusion: Since there was a failure on the part of the respondent to serve notice of not less than 15 days upon assessee, therefore, the notice of sale proposing to auction the property of the was bad in law and the consequent sale was liable to […]
