The appellant deals in the manufacture and sale of cement. According to the appellant, in the present case, sale of cement was made at the destination of the buyer and hence the appellant would be entitled to CENVAT credit on input service on transportation of the cement sold by the appellant.
CIT (A) appeal as well as ITAT examined the document relied upon the revenue for making addition. It was found that the document was not addressed to anyone and without any signature and date. In such situation it can be said that it belong to assessee.
In the language of Section 2 (22) (e) the term beneficial owner of shares includes both registered as well as beneficial share holder. So provisions of this section could be applied where assessee can be treated as both mentioned above.
The facts in that case were that the assessee had booked a flat, and was recipient of a provisional allotment letter. The Court held importantly that even booking rights or rights to purchase the apartment or to obtain its letter was also capital asset
There are various case laws which conclude the facts that once the assesse discharged its primary onus by placing material and document on record before AO then it is assumed that the unexplained amount reflected in books of assessee stands explained.
Whether in absence of proper service of notice u/s 143 (2) assessment proceedings for relevant Assessment year can be validated.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M/s The Indian Hume Pipe Co., Ltd. (High Court), At the outset, it may be noted that consequent to the Constitutional amendment, levy of Sales Tax on the Works Contract came to be introduced in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 01.07.1985.
Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs M/s Mahesh Munjal HUF held that if the assesse had paid advance tax in his individual capacity after considering his estimated share in his firm’s income without any anticipation that the firm’s income on which he was paying advance tax was false then interest u/s 215 could not be levied.
In another case of recovery of disputed dues by the Commercial Taxes department, by attaching the bank account of the assessee, during pendency of revision petition, the Hon ‘ble Madras High Court has directed the revision authority to dispose of the revision petition along with stay application within four weeks and kept the recovery in abeyance.
In AY 1994-15, the assessee (Sarita Aggarwal) had shown credit of Rs.2,60,000/- in the capital account under the narration Gift. The Assessing Officer disbelieved the claim and made an addition of the aforesaid amount to the income as declared, holding that the assessee was unable to establish genuineness of the gift.
