Hon’ble Delhi ITAT has in the case of DCIT v/s Heminder Kumari in ITA No. 4210-4213/Del/2013 has held that the information received by the Assessing officer from his investigation Wing, at best, be regarded as a prima-facie material, but could not be construed as conclusive for use against the assessee to fasten any tax liability, because the same was required to be corroborated by credible and independent evidence.
In the instant case, the assessee is a charitable trust registered u/s. 12AA of the Act. The assessee trust paid remuneration of Rs 4,80,000/- to Shri Anantbhai K. Shah who is a full time secretary and trustee of the assessee trust.
We have found that the G.P. rate in this year has been on lower side. However, the decrease in G.P. rate stands explained by the undeniable reasons that there is heavy increase in purchase price, freight cost and export cost.
AO, in his remand report could not bring out any fact that the cash withdrawn from Saving Bank Account and partnership overdraft account was used for other purpose anywhere else then, merely because there was a time gap between withdrawal of cash and its further deposit to the bank account, the amount can not be treated as income from undisclosed sources u/s 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee.
Merely change in the flat without determining any consideration for the old flat cancelled and new flat transferred, it cannot be said that the old flat was sold and new flat was purchased on the date of change.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had sold her immovable property being residential flat No.101, 1st floor, Hill Queen, Pali Malla Road, Bandra, Mumbai for Rs. 1,55,00,000/- on 30.08.2006 and after indexation Long Term Capitasl Gains( LTCG) of Rs.1,26,20,624/- were determined.
ITAT held in its order that ICAI CPE programmes might have failed to achieve the desired objectives with some of the Chartered Accountants. It further said that it is hightime that the ICAI should take note of these practicalities and should take corrective steps in order to maintain/restore the high standards and quality expected from a C.A. professional.
Hon’ble Hyderabad ITAT has in the case of Dr. G. Premalatha v/s DCIT has categorically held that the CIT(A) had no jurisdiction in appeal proceedings to call for a valuation report, which is the exclusive prerogative of the AO.
ITAT Chennai ruling on reimbursement of communication expenses to foreign company and managing sales affairs outside India by International Flavours & Fragrances.
Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kumararani Meenakshi Achi (supra) has held that the differential treatment cannot be meted out to another co-owner while making the assessment of same property or while valuing the same property.
