The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in construction business which was subject to a search action u/s 132(1) of the Act on 06.10.2009. In the course of search, Shri Rajesh Malpani, partner of the assessee firm in a statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act on 03.12.2009
The Assessing Authority having noticed that the assessee-company had accepted share application money in cash from its directors in violation of provisions of section 269SS, imposed penalty under section 271D and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld penalty order.
Assessing Officer has held that (a) Carbon Credit is not a capital receipt, (b) cost of acquisition of Carbon Credit is NIL & (c) entire receipt is taxable as capital gain. However, in the computation, it has been added as Business income.
In the case before us, the legal heir was never impleaded or brought on record. The show cause notice for penalty was not issued, as legal heir of the deceased, and therefore, it cannot be said that non-mentioning of the name of the legal heir and writing of name of the deceased at the top
When a partner receives her/his share in the assets of the partnership firm or when he receives anything in excess of her/his share in the assets of the partnership firm and even in a case a partner receives a share of profit either in case of retirement or in case of dissolution, the same cannot be brought to tax
If banking facilities are not available at the place where land is purchased no disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961. Unsubstantiated material found in pen drive cannot be considered as a conclusive evidence to make additions
The unsubstantiated loose sheets cannot be considered as a conclusive evidence to make any addition towards undisclosed income. It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 that ‘file containing loose sheets of papers are not books’ and hence entries therein are not admissible u/s. 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
The brief facts of the case are that the AO observed from the return of income filed by the assesee that the assessee’ s income included income from salary from Price Water House of which he was a partner. Since income by way of salary or remuneration from a firm was to be assessed
Financial position of the assessee is very sound as agreed even by its ld. Counsel and any further recovery of the outstanding demand on account of penalty is not going to cause any genuine hardship to the assessee. At the same time, government also needs liquid funds to manage its day to day affairs. Having regard to all these facts & circumstances, we are of the view that the stay of outstanding demand for both the years can justifiably be granted subject to a further payment of Rs.50,00,000/-by the assessee against the penalty imposed for each of the two years under consideration.
Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee has not been given proper opportunity of being heard. He submitted that the assessment order was passed on 28.12.2007. He submitted that the query in this regard came from the Assessing Officer on 20.12.2007.
