Recovery provisions under section 201(1) can be invoked only when loss to revenue is established, and that can only be established when it is demonstrated that the recipient of income has not paid due taxes thereof and the recipient of the amounts had the liability to tax.
Where a search is initiated u/s 132 of the Act etc., the A.O shall issue a notice requiring the person searched etc. to furnish his return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year
At the outset it may be mentioned that the Income Tax Officer, who is the appellant herein, as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax, who has authorised the AO to prefer an appeal, did not apply their mind in the correct perspective and in a very lacklustre and routine manner filed the appeal
Assessee argued that the clear transactions involving payment of share application money cannot be treated as international transactions of loans given by the assessee company to its AE merely because there was a delay in allotment of shares.
The issue before us is whether the transfer of the shares of Nestle India Ltd and Hindustan Lever Ltd held by the members of Bilakhia family as investment by them to the assessee-company as per family arrangement dated 16-02-2001 claimed to have been transferred without
Assessee has not concealed anything in this regard. Therefore, it cannot be a case of concealment of facts. As far as the filing of inaccurate particulars of income is concerned, we hold that assessee was having huge carry forward losses and depreciation and the return was filed at nil income.
Time limits set out under section 153, for completing the assessments, reassessments and recomputations, are concerned, is that these time limits do not apply in the cases “where the assessment, reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person
he assessee claimed that the assessee borrowed unsecured loan @ 18% from related as well as unrelated parties. Therefore, the rate of 18% cannot be said to be excessive. Reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of Balkrishna Goyal vs. DCIT, I.T.A.No. 590/Ind/2009
If no additions made on grounds set for reasons for reassessment, than no addition can be made on other aspects The legal position is fairly well settled on the issue that in a reassessment proceeding, when no additions are made in respect of the income, purportedly escaping the assessment, set out in the reasons for re-opening the assessment, no other additions can be made either.
Merely because and institution has borrowed funds, one cannot conclude that the objects of such institution cannot be charitable. The assessee may borrow funds for fulfillment of its objects, therefore, we have stated in framing words, the mere facts of borrowing cannot be against the assessee at the stage of grant of registration.
