On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 14,36,653 which was made by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the I. T. Act by treating the purchase are genuine without appreciating the fact that the notices u/s 133(6) issued to the parties were returned unnerved as addressee was not available at the given address.
There is, therefore, nothing to contradict the categorical finding of the ITAT that the document which formed the main basis for initiation of the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act does not belong to the Assessee. One of the principal conditions for attracting Section 153C of the Act is, therefore, not fulfilled in the present case.
They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts may be noted from Special Civil Application No. 2548 of 2016.
In a recent ruling, the Hyderabad ITAT ruled that non- enclosure of audit report to the return of income would not attract penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act.
In Shanders Properties Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO, the ITAT Bangalore directed the AO to allow the expenditure incurred in relation to issuance of debentures as it constitute revenue expenditure under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
AO was not justified in making addition in the hands of assessee, without allowing the assessee to cross-examine Mr. Mukesh Choksi, whose statement was relied upon for making the above additions.
Medical illness and that to be in the nature of the typhoid fever and UTI is definitely reasonable cause for non- appearing on the date and therefore, we are of the opinion that no penalty should be levied u/s 271(1)(b) in such circumstances as the same is covered under exception of ‘reasonable cause’ as enshrined in section 273B.
There is nothing brought on record to show that the activities of the assessee are driven by profit motive. In these circumstances we are of the view that the conditions for grant of registration u/s 12AA of the Act are duly satisfied as the activities of the assessee are genuine and its objects are also charitable.
No technical services were involved in payment of carriage charges made by the assessee for broadcasting of the programmes produced by the assessee. The assessee produced various types of programmes/ serials and news and these were telecasted/ broadcasted through Multi System Operators. Payments in this regard were made as carriage charges for which payment of tax was deductible under section 194C of the Income Tax Act.
In B.R Petrochem Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO, the division bench of the Madras High Court held that mere furnishing of identity of shareholders by the asseessee would not sufficient to discharge their onus under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. While confirming the addition made against the assessee, the bench ruled that the assessee must prove the genuineness and credit worthiness of the creditors in order to shift the burden to the department.
