Notice could be issued under section 148 in relation to search and seizure as assessee was one of the investor/partner along with the others to acquire the land for TDR generation which could not be disputed and was admitted in the post search statement by the director and the assessee was provided the benefit of cross examination of the director to test check the authenticity of the transactions.
Penalty was not leviable as assessee made a computational error in not disallowing 1/6th out of expenses on car amounting to aforesaid Rs.1,63,263/- being 1/6th out of motor car expenses however assessees claim was accepted that this computational error was due to oversight and inadvertent mistake, and that the error was a bonafide one.
ITAT Delhi held that TDS provisions are not applicable in case of commission paid to bank and commission paid to partners. Accordingly, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) unsustainable.
Addition made by the lower authorities to the extent of opening balance of share premium of Rs.63,32,28,987/- u/s 68 in AY 2018-19 was unjustified as share premium received in earlier years had already been examined and verified in the income-tax assessments framed u/s 143(3) and the explanation furnished by assessee had been accepted.
ITAT Mumbai held that NABARD has acted as nodal or implementing agency for the schemes framed by GOI. Hence the amounts transferred to Tribal Development Fund/Watershed Development Fund are diverted at source itself and hence not taxable in the hands of the assessee.
ITAT Bangalore held that excess premium paid by the assessee on redemption of preference shares cannot be taxed as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(d) or section 2(22)(e) and hence deleted the addition.
ITAT Delhi held that the onus is on the assessee to prove both source and nature of the credits in case of unexplained credit u/s 68. Unexplained credit will sustain in case the assessee fails to prove any of the same.
ITAT Allahabad held that while rejecting the application for grant of approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) CCIT has not dealt with all the aspects in a comprehensive manner and hence the matter restored back for passing detailed and exhaustive order.
ITAT held that Income Tax reassessment initiated on the basis of borrowed satisfaction without any independent application of mind by Assessing Officer is liable to be quashed.
ITAT held that additions framed on account of undisclosed income being sustained in part is justified, where assessee was required to file complete details of such friends and relatives and also the details of sales but the same has not been done at any stage.
