AO was not justified in adding the entire suppressed receipts after rejection of books of accounts while making assessment u/s 153A as CIT(A) was fair enough to apply 2% of net profit rate on the alleged suppressed receipts by taking basis of net profit rate disclosed by the assessee for various assessment years which ranges from 0.5% to 2.05%.
ITO Vs Mukesh Champaklal Shah (ITAT Pune) The definition of capital asset excludes agricultural land and certain criteria have been placed in this statue to qualify the land as agricultural land. The facts on records demonstrate that both the parties have accepted the land to be an agricultural land. The 7/12 extracts clearly demonstrates the […]
Sharing of the profit or income under the agreement between the parties and assessee and 80% of the income was going to the commercial entities clearly established the intention of the parties in this arrangements being for profit were not solely for providing education, therefore, the benefit of Section 10(23C)(iiiad) was not available to assessee.
Sri. Abdul Azeez M Vs ACIT (ITAT Cochin) Admittedly in this case, no audit report has been filed for assessment year 2009-2010. It is the contention of the assessee that there was a reasonable cause as mandated u/s 273B of the I.T.Act. It was submitted by the learned AR that consequent to search and seizure […]
Since assessee had deducted the TDS, but not remitted to Government account and for that he had not given any satisfactory explanation either before AO or before CIT(A), therefore, penalty under section 271C was justified.
Shravan Choudhary Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) If the transaction is a business transaction between the parties then the amount received under the said transaction cannot be held as loan or advance to be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee explained the facts regarding the loan given by the assessee […]
In view of the above mentioned parameters, ITAT found that the appellant has not been able to discharge even the basic onus to prove the genuineness of cash credits in his bank accounts. Therefore, in their considered view when the existence of the source of such cash deposits is not proven then the A.0 is fully justified in treating such cash deposits as unexplained and liable to be taxed.
Smt. Vatsala Asthana Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Regarding the payment made by the assessee before 31/03/2014, Hon7ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Shankar Lal Saini (supra) held that, where assessee, an individual deposited unutilized sale consideration in capital gains scheme within the due date of filing of belated tax return under section […]
Addition made by AO on account of suppression of profit and obtaining fictitious loss by assessee company by way of Client Code Modification (CCM) and on account of commission paid to brokers to obtain fictitious loss through CCM was to be deleted as AO had mechanically added amounts as income of assessee without verifying & furnishing
Any expenditure incurred for obtaining loan was allowable as revenue expenditure even if the loan was intended for acquiring a capital asset. Thus, upfront fee paid to bank was thus allowable.
