Manne Hareesh Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Ld. AO that the assessee has debited in his P & L Account an amount of Rs. 2,40,000 towards Accounting Charges. On query, it was explained by the assessee that the outstanding amount of Rs. 2,40,000 was […]
whether AO is correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled exemption u/s.54 of the Act by rejecting the claim of the assessee to have deposited in capital gain deposit account?
The issue under consideration is whether the interest expense can be disallowed u/s 57(iii) on the ground that rate of interest paid was higher that rate of interest received in own case?
Where registration of the Trust does not involve inquiry into the actual activities or application of the funds etc., particularly when there was nothing on record to make out that the object of the Trust or activities of the Trust were not genuine, therefore, CIT(E) had no ground to decline the registration under section 12AA.
M/s JDC Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) A careful reading of Section 147 clearly shows that it empowers the learned AO to assess or re-assess the income in respect of any issue which had escaped the assessment irrespective of the fact that whether such aspect was adverted to in respect of the reasons […]
i) The term recovery is comprehensive and includes adjustment thereby reducing the demand; (ii) It will be specious & illogical for the Revenue to contend that if an issue is decided in favour of the assessee giving rise to a refund in an earlier year, that refund can be adjusted u/s 245, on account of the demand on the same issue in a subsequent year.
Since the unaccounted money as alleged by the AO was the loan, which was repaid subsequently by assessee, addition made on account of unverifiable unsecured loans was unjustified.
Where assessee failed to upload the report electronically in Form No. 3CEB but said report was promptly made available in the assessment proceedings itself, said failure was accepted as bona fide and accordingly, the penalty levied under section 271BA was to be quashed.
Not passing a speaking order rejecting the objections of assessee to reopening of assessment but passing an order under section 147 making the additions based on reasons recorded had caused serious prejudice to interest of assessee. Thus, reopening had not been done in accordance with the law by AO and, therefore, reassessment order was set aside.
Since there was no diversion of sale proceeds by overriding title, but on the contrary, there was only a mere application of the sale proceeds realised on sale of plots towards the discharge of outstanding loan liability of assessee thus
