Investments are made in Govt. securities, debentures, bonds having fixed rate of return. Assessee is maintaining books of account on mercantile system i.e, on accrual basis. Whether Payment of Interest accrues on day to day basis? Referring to the decision of tribunal, high-court and Supreme Court in various cases sighted
If the AO had reopened the assessment and made a disallowance and these facts could affect the outcome of the issue, the AO should appear before the FAA to file an explanation about the chronology of events. But, in any manner the subsequent decision taken by the AO cannot be held to be a mistake apparent from the record.
The assessee company rather assumed the risk of taking the liability of another company which cannot be said to be for business purpose of the assessee. Hence, the activity of advancing the money and paying the debt of the M/s. Vinedale Ltd. which was on account of purchase of machinery being capital asset, cannot be said to be the business activity
In the instant case, the assessee has proved beyond doubt that the default by him in not paying the self-assessment tax is not wilful and it was beyond his control as there was no sufficient money available with him to pay the self-assessment tax especially when the income is mainly from short term and long term capital gain.
The predominant activities of the centre was not to earn income but to provide facilities for disseminating or exchanging knowledge as per the object of the society The dominant object of the assessee is definitely for the well being of public at large by organizing various seminars for
Assessee is not liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act since the same was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. The addition was based on the basis of loan creditors found from the balance sheet already filed prior to the search along with the original return of income.
Sponsorship charges incurred by the assessee company on study of daughter of the Director of the company abroad was not held to be of Personal Nature in view of the fact that study was sponsored by the assessee-company for its business exigency. Moreover she, being a Deputy General Manager of the assessee company, has entered into an agreement with the assessee company to serve the company for at-least five years post completion of studies abroad.
It was held that it is undisputed fact that the ‘Jorhar Unit’ of the assessee did not function at all in the present year and its assets although part of block of assets are identifiable and therefore as per provision of section 38(2) of the Act, depreciation is not allowable because assets of this unit were not used for business purposes in the present year.
Whether CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on fixed assets without appreciating the fact that the capital expenditure incurred on acquiring the assets has already been claimed as application of income u/s. 11 of the I. T. Act 1961 in the current / past years.
ITAT Mumbai held that the ad hoc disallowance made by the AO was not based on any scientific or logical basis. It is a fact that the books of the assessee are audited and no discrepancy was pointed out by the AO about the accounts maintained by him. Cash vouchers were supported by the documentary evidences
