Initial burden was on assessee to show that transactions in loose sheet were not in the nature of undisclosed investments. As assessee failed to discharge the same, AO was justified in making addition under section 69.
Shri Keshav Lila Vs. ACIT (ITAT Indore) CBDT instructions which in our view provides a guideline to the search conducting team that no seizure should be made of the jewellery and ornaments found during the course of search proceedings u/s 132 of the Act, if the same have been duly declared in the wealth tax […]
Tribunal held that the beneficial shareholders of the lender company are partners of the assessee- firm and therefore the deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) has to be assessed only in the hands of the partners and not in the hands of the assessee- firm.
DCIT Vs Smt. Sriram Satyavathi (ITAT Visakhapatnam) The fact that the company M/s. Vijetha Constructions has taken the advances for sale of flats was substantiated by the registered sale agreements. The same cheque No. and the dates were mentioned in the promissory note and the sale deeds which fortifies the assessee’s contention that the promissory […]
In the case of The Income-tax Officer vs M/s. Shree Kastbhanjan Dev Developers, the Ahmedabad bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) proclaimed in its recent order that firm cannot be assessed for unexplained cash credits in respect of capital introduction by its partner.
ACIT Vs. Sh. Mohinder Singh (ITAT Chandigarh) Nature of receipt of income over and above the registered sale consideration in the hands of seller The nature of receipt of the income over and above the registered sale consideration in the hands of seller would not fall under the head ‘Capital Gains’ but ‘income from other […]
M/s. Gujrani & Co. Vs. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Kolkata) It is observed that the audit expenses of Rs. 5,19,238/- were claimed to be incurred by the assessee- company towards traveling and conveyance of the Articled Clerks, who were C.A. students receiving training from the assessee- firm. It was contended by the assessee during the […]
Undisputedly, interest-free funds available with assessee were far in excess of amount advanced to sister concern and a presumption would arise in favour of the assessee that interest-free funds had been utilized for advancing interest free loan to the sister cocnern, therefore, disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(iii) was not justified.
LOAN AND ADVANCES –Interest free funds available with the assessee is in excess of amount advanced to sister concern. There is no nexus between the interest bearing funds and the money so advanced to sister concern which has been established by AO. In view of the same, a presumption will arise in favour of assessee that interest free funds have been utilized for advancing such advance to sister concern.
In the recent landmark judgement of Texport Overseas Private Limited v. DCIT [IT(TP)A No. 1722/Bang/2017], Honorable Bangalore Tribunal held that: it would be deemed that clause (i) of Section 92BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act”) was never been on the statute as it has been omitted w.e.f. April 01, 2017 vide Finance Act, 2017 and nothing was specified whether the proceeding initiated or action taken on this continue.
