Section 14A contains the expression ‘in relation to income which does not form part of the total income’. The said decision cannot be used in the reverse to contend that even if no income has been received, the expenditure incurred can be disallowed u/s 14A.
ITAT held that it is not in dispute that the receipt representing forfeiture of share warrants is only a capital receipt & not chargeable to tax. However, the same has been duly credited in the profit and loss account as an extraordinary item.
The Tribunal granted 100 percent stay of demand because (a) the assessed income was more than 10 times the returned income. (Instruction 96 of 1969 was relied upon) & (b) The stand taken by the AO was at variance with the stand taken by TPO.
The entire role of the assessee and the activity performed by him for which he was remunerated, have a direct and proximate link with the game of cricket. In the given facts of this case, one cannot visualise earning of this income, de-horse the assessee having been a cricketer and a sportsman and nor can it be visualised independent of the game of cricket.
ITAT Mumbai held in the case of Reliance Wellness Ltd. vs. DCIT that treatment given in the books of account is not relevant to examine the claim put forth by the assessee. In this case Assessee was in the process of expansion of its business operations by opening various new shops
For invoking provisions of section 69A assessee should be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or any other valuable articles. In this case of assessee he was not found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or any other valuable articles.
ITAT Bangalore held in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Tumkur Veerashiva Co-operative Bank Ltd. that from the facts, it is clearly shows that the amount spent out of members benevolent fund and members death relief fund are spent for the welfare of the members.
Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by an order dated 28.3.2013. The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax in the guise of exercising his power u/s 263 of the Act, issued show cause notice calling for the objection of the assessee.
The Jaipur bench of ITAT in the above cited case held that the assessee is only expected to produce the documentary evidences regarding the transaction and identity of the persons from whom it has accepted the deposits.
The ITAT Bench Jaipur in the above cited case held that as per CBDT circular 6/2016 dated 29.02.2016 , if the assessee has treated the securities as investment and not as stock in trade earlier years,the revenue is not permitted to take a contrary view in the present year to claim that the security is stock in trade
