Naveen Kumar Kaparthy Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) In the instant case, when the books of account are not maintained, the AO did not initiate any proceedings for not maintaining the books of account. The AO obviously satisfied that the books of account were not maintained for good and sufficient reasons. When the AO accepted the […]
Even though amendment was given a retrospective effect but by that time assessee had already done the transactions without complying section 194J for payment made towards data line charges, therefore, assessee could not be held to have violated the provisions of section 194J, because the law cannot possibly compel a person to do something which is impossible to perform.
As AO has not unearthed any incriminating during the course of search operation under section 132, so no addition could be made during the relevant assessment year under section 153A by reopening the assessment on the matter, which was already examined earlier during original asses
ITAT states that, once the source of deposit is explained as prior withdrawal from the bank of more than the amount deposited subsequently then the creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction cannot be doubted.
It cannot be said that the shares of the profit in AOP of members is determinate or known. Thus on cumulative consideration of all clause the three agreement entered into it is crystal clear that shares members of AOP are indeterminate and unknown, therefore the provisions of sub section (1) to Section 167B of the Act are squarely applicable and we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.
The appeal has been filed against the addition of Rs. 11,12,211/- made by the learned AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeals) treating the said amount as not commission but as salary income without allowing deduction u/s. 37 of the IT. Act, 1961, the expenses incurred to earn the said commission. But in fact, the entire receipt is commission and not salary as it would be clear going though the fact of the case.
The issue under consideration is whether denial of the exemption under section 11/12 due to various discrepancies found in verification of unsecured loans is justified in law?
Once revenue allowed the deduction for the depreciation claimed by the assessee, then it is debarred to reject the claim of the assessee in the subsequent year on the WDV carried forward from the earlier assessment year.
ITO Vs Shri Deepak Chadha (ITAT Delhi) Mere Doubting Expenditure On Construction Without Evidence On Sole Basis Of Inspector Report Is Invalid In the present case the addition has been made by the ld AO on the basis of mere presumptions. The market value of the flat determined by the ld AO was without any […]
Where corpus donation could not be verified as donor was not co-operating in providing details, it was rightly treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68.
