Trushar Parimal Shah Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The addition in the present case was made under section 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenses. Indeed, the primary onus lies on the assessee to justify the expenses claimed by him. However from the preceding discussion, we note that the assessee has discharged his onus […]
Assessee not having routed service tax amount through profit and loss account, there was no question of making disallowance under section 43B on account of delayed payment of service-tax.
Assessee is not expected to prove the genuineness of the cash deposited in the bank accounts of those creditors because under law the assessee can be asked to prove the source of the credits in its books of account but not the source of the source
whether interest received u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land in the nature of compensation is exempt u/s 10(37) or chargeable to tax under head ‘Income from Other Sources’?
Since AO had completed the assessment in the name of a company which had merged and was not in existence on the date the assessment order was passed, therefore, the assessment was invalid and the same was not a curable defect under section 292B.
Addition made by AO on the ground that although assessee had claimed credit for TDS on the interest income from the bank corresponding interest income was not offered to tax by assessee during the year was justified as assessee was regularly following mercantile system of accounting interest income in question was liable to be taxed in assessment year in question itself.
Inter-trust donation by one charitable trust to another for utilization by the donee trust towards charitable objects was proper application of income for charitable purpose in the hands of donee trust and it would not affect the exemption claimed by assessee u/s 11 in any manner whatsoever nor inter-trust donation could be termed as deviation from its objects .
The revisional action under Section 263 of the Act in unsustainable in law on two counts; (i) A revisional action which began with a nondescript notice and culminated in revisional order without any effective opportunity despite specific request is an order passed in blatant transgression of natural justice & (ii) The Revisional CIT made an unflinching and adverse conclusion in the league of finality (without granting any opportunity) and closed the door for the assessee before the AO while setting aside the order of AO.
Where basic evidence to prove the contention of assessee was contract between assessee and organizers, which assessee failed to produce before AO and contentions as raised by assessee have not been substantiated through any evidence or material on record, therefore, space was allotted to assessee for carrying out its business activities and assessee was liable to deduct TDS under section 194-I.
The assessee before us is a HUF. During the relevant previous year, the assessee sold three properties. In the income tax return filed by the assessee, however, only the capital gains on sale of 1/2 of these properties were shown. When the Assessing Officer probed this apparent discrepancy, it was explained that these properties were purchased by Shri Pranayakumar Shodhan
