10. A plain reading of section 154 quoted above reveals that the Assessing Officer has to pass an order amending the assessment within the period of limitation as provided under sub-section (7) . Sub-section (3) of section 154 quoted above makes it obligatory upon the Assessing Officer to give a notice to the assessee and afford reasonable opportunity of being heard if the proposed amendment has the effect of enhancing an assessment
5. From the facts of this case, it transpires that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not laid down any universally applicable principle that income from immovable property, be invariably taxed under the head ‘Income from House Property’. It was on the consideration of the cumulative effect of all the factors prevailing in case, which have been noted above, that the income from immovable property was held to be taxable under this head
8. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that there is no dispute about the fact that the payments in question were made by the assessee company in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/- towards service charges to the crew. The dispute, however, is that whether the said payments were covered by the exceptions prescribed in Rule 6DD(j)
7. We have carefully considered the relevant facts, arguments advanced and the case laws cited. It is not in dispute that the assessments sought to be reopened were earlier completed only by accepting the same under section 143(l)(a) of the Act. When assessments are completed under section 143(l)(a) it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has expressed any opinion on the correctness or otherwise
9. I have gone through the records carefully and I am unable to find any reason for making addition in the hands of the assessee. The addition is based upon the search proceedings and seizure that took place in the case of Narendra Kumar Paraswani not in the hands of the firm. Even the statement that were recorded have not implicated the assessee in any manner
The Allahabad High Court also denied the credit of alleged purchases in Shri Ganesha Rice Mills by stating `So far as the question of deduction of purchases from the corresponding sales are concerned, we may mention that the applicant being a manufacturer of Chuni-Bhusi and purchases having been found to be bogus and there is no other purchases of Chuni-Bhusi, the benefit of deduction of such purchases has rightly been disallowed
In ACIT Vs Rogini Garments108 ITD 49 the Special Bench at Chennai held that relief allowed u/s 80-IA had to be deducted from profits and gains of assessee’s business on which relief u/s 80HHC of the Act is to be computed. Subsequently, the Madras High Court in SCM Creations 304 ITR 319 took a contrary view. The question whether Rogini Garments was impliedly overruled was referred
In Asstt. CIT v. Suman Construction (2009) 27 (II) ITCL 329 (Pune ‘A’-Trib) the assessing officer had noticed that the assessee had claimed salary to partners of Rs. 2,20,000. However, in his opinion as per the partnership deed filed along with the return in the past assessment year, there was no specification of this salary payable to the partners.
5. The assessee was subjected to search assessment, whereupon additions were made, which included disallowance of interest expenditure Rs.54,1800/- ; addition for unexplained cash credit Rs.10,500/-, and another disallowance of claim of set off of business loss Rs.18,698/-; totalling Rs.83,378/-. The assessee contended before the AO that the disallowance of interest expenditure on bank loan was only a technical addition
The first issue is taken up first for consideration. Section 139(5) permits the assessee to file a revised return on discovery of an omission or any wrong statement in the original return. Of course, only such return can be revised which has been filed under section 139 (1) or which has been filed pursuant to notice under section 142 (1).
