Assessee society is generating surplus year after year is not the deciding factor to determine whether it is eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act. And on this ground alone, the exemption claimed by the assessee society under section 11 can not be denied. What is relevant to examine is whether the surplus so generated is ploughed back in furtherance of its educational objectives and related activities or not.
In terms of section 153A of the Act, the already finalised assessment can only be disturbed if the search team has found some incriminating documents or material and which was relied upon by the AO at the time of framing the assessment or the addition is made in the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act by referring to seized material and not otherwise
The addition has been made invoking the deeming provisions of section 50c of the Act. There is no finding that the actual sale consideration is more than that mentioned in the sale agreement.
Admittedly, the contributions of the assessees to the Provident Fund are not a recognized Fund, the same are not eligible for deduction u/s. 80C (2) (vi) of the I.T. Act.
We note that GP rate on the accounted sales estimated by the assessee himself stands at 07.29%. We thus fail to understand as to how the GP for the unaccounted sale should be so lower at 03.56% which is less than half of the GP rate declared by the assessee himself on accounted sales.
In the present appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Jamnagar [CIT(A)- in short] in confirming the addition of Rs.3,25,528/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
Revenue is believed to prove that the activities undertaken by the alleged company are not meeting commercial prudence and the working of this company is merely to provide accommodation entries.
Provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are applicable not only to the amounts which is shown as payable on the date of balance sheet but it is applicable to such expenditure which becomes payable at any time during the relevant previous year and was actually paid within the previous year.
Since TIPS were received from customers and not from employer these would be chargeable in the hands of employee as income from other sources and section 192 would not get attracted on facts of case.
Amounts shown as liabilities / Outstanding in the Balance Sheet cannot be deemed to be “cessation of liability” under Section 41(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 merely because the liabilities are outstanding for several years. Assessing Officer has to bring on record any material evidence to establish that there was cessation of liability in respect of the outstanding creditors balances represented in the assessee’s Balance Sheet.
