Appeal of the revenue stands allowed and only the cost of theland has to be considered for calculating exemption u/s 54B no other expenses will be taken into account. So ITAT disallowed the expenses of leveling and filing of land and set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore that of A.O on this issue.
Permission/denial by the RBI to register an assessee as NBFC does not decide the issue of carrying of business or make the business illegal. We hold that the interest income earned by the assessee has to be taxed under the head business income and all the expenses related with it have to be allowed.
Once the registration u/s 12AA granted to trust and the activities of the trust are genuine and as per object of the trust, CIT or any other authority empowered in this behalf cannot cancel registration on ground of involvement of trust in any activity other than charitable purpose.
In the recent judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT (supra), the Hon’ble Court has held that ‘if there is no reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment based on new tangible material, then the reopening of assessment amounts to impermissible review’.
The assessee company is not the shareholder in M/s Precision Stock & Credit Pvt. Ltd. and received the amount from the said company in the course of ordinary business activities. Therefore, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid referred to case, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act were not applicable.
The assessee submitted that he produced following evidences before the AO to prove the identity and creditworthiness of Shri Vinod Kumar :- (i) Copy of Share Application received from Mr. Vinod Kumar (ii) Copy of Shares Certificate of shares Allotted to him (iii) Copy of confirmation received from him
Mere cash deposit in the bank account of the creditor cannot be said that the creditor has no creditworthiness. Then by disagreeing by the other decisions the Hon’ble Tribunal held that in the present case, not even a notice was issued by the Assessing Officer to the creditors to examine and verify the case of the assessee regarding creditworthiness and identity of the creditors.
During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had received a loan of Rs.30.00 lakhs in cash on 10.05.2009 thereby violating the provisions of section 269S of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, penalty notice u/s 271D of the I.T. Act was issued to the assessee on 25.04.2013 which was duly served on the assessee.
The Hon’ble Tribunal held that all the persons questioned have confirmed that cheques have been handed over to the appellant only as a measure of security for supply of scrap or for the purpose of obtaining the loan, but all of them have denied having obtained any loan from the appellant. The statements given by those people remains uncontroverted.
The Hon’ble Tribunal agreeing to the contentions of the assessee held that regarding GBR, payments made to them were only towards reimbursement of shipment charges and therefore, no tax was deducted at source. Assessee did not attract the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as reimbursement of expenses do not consist the income of the recipient
