The Tribunal has specifically found that in the process of manufacture of cotton yarn, cotton waste came to be generated and the use of the said waste by another manufacturer shows that it was used as raw material by purchaser.
Recently In the case of CIT Vs. Sahara India (Firm) Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that amount received from deposits from the public under different finance schemes cannot be treated as Income of the Assessee as Assessee is a mere custodian of the deposit.
The applicant had collected Rs.2.59 Cores of Service Tax during the period 2010-2011 to 2013-2014 but had not deposited the said amount except Rs.15 Lakhs. The applicant had in fact never filed any service tax returns and as such knowingly utilized the Government monies for his personal use.
Hon’ble Gujarat HC has held in the case of Dineshchandra Bhailalbhai Gandhi VS. TRO has held that deposits in PPF Account are immune from attachment for recovery of tax dues and Rule 10 of Schedule II of the I-T Act exempts all such properties from attachment or sale.
It is undisputed that the vehicles were registered in the name of the respective customers. However, in the registration certificate a remark in terms of agreement was to be recorded to the effect that vehicle is held by the registered owner under a hire purchase agreement with the respondent assessee.
The share applicants’ lack of resources, the assessee’s position vis-à-vis share amounts received and its commercial condition all pointed to the amount received by it falling within the mischief of Section 68 as unexplained amounts. That the AO or ITAT chose to treat the amount, as bogus share capital, is a matter of inference which the Court would be loath to interfere with.
Authorities under the Act are obliged to dispose of proceedings before them as expeditiously as possible after the conclusion of the hearing. This alone would ensure that all the submissions made by a party are considered in the order passed and ensure that the litigant also has a satisfaction
There can be no doubt that the burden of showing that expenditure would be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business under Section 37(1) is upon the assessee and that personal expenditure cannot be claimed as business expenditure.
We have examined the original record but did not find the proceedings or order sheets relating to original proceedings on record. This is a serious lapse, and it is apparent that the proceeding sheets in the respondents‟ custody and charge, have been removed.
The petitioner is a retired officer of the Indian Revenue Service and served in various capacities including, inter alia, the position of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Director General of Vigilance, Chief Vigilance Officer of the Central Board of Direct Taxes
