Where assessee claimed that there was wrong credit entry by payer-client in Form 26AS, AO was required to examine its genuineness before making any addition on account of mismatch between receipts reflected in Form 26AS and in profit and loss account. Thus, matter was remanded for re-adjudication.
We find that in this case the assessment was framed by the AO after making ex-parte addition of Rs.16,54,146/-towards 100% of the bogus purchases which the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings reduced to 12.5% of such purchases. In our opinion, this is a clear cut case where the income has been estimated by applying a percentage of 12.5% and therefore the penalty under section 271(1)(c) can not be imposed. We are, therefore, setting aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty.
ITO Vs. Ambika Metalchem Impex P. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case, we find that the assessee has duly discharged the initial onus of proving the identity of the investors, creditworthiness of the transactions and genuineness of the transactions. Notices issued u/s 133(6) have been responded to. In such a scenario, the onus to […]
ACIT (Exemption) Vs Bhansali Trust (ITAT Mumbai) A mere non-intimation of the amendments in the Trust Deed to the Department cannot ipso-facto lead to cancellation of registration because the statutory requirement of cancellation of registration contained in section 12AA(3) of the Act prescribe that the cancellation of registration cannot be effectuated unless a case is […]
Kirloskar Oil Engines Limited Vs JCIT (ITAT Pune) The issue under consideration is whether the disallowance made for commission paid to director u/s. 40A(2) is justified? ITAT states that, the assessee is against disallowance of commission paid to Shri Atul Kirloskar u/s. 40A(2) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that in earlier assessment […]
Where prior to completion of assessment, assessee had already reported its new address to revenue, but AO sent the notices to assessee at the old address, then assessee could not be held in default for not complying with notices under section 142(1)/(143(2).
The issue under consideration is whether income from sale of tea manufactured and sold from tea leaves purchased from third parties was from non-agricultural activity and therefore, was not eligible for deduction of 60%?
Surplus resulting from assignment of loan at present value of future liability was not cessation or extinguishment of liability as loan was to be repaid by the third party and therefore could not be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee under section 41(1).
The issue under consideration is whether TDS u/s 194J will be applicable on payments made by TPA to hospitals on behalf of insurance companies for settling medical or insurance claims?
whether the interest on bank deposit earned by assessee engaged in money lending covered under head of Business Income or Income from Other Sources?
