Since the title in goods passed from foreign suppliers to assessee outside India at the port of shipment and AO failed to show as to how income of foreign parties was chargeable to tax in India, therefore, no income had accrued to foreign parties in India in terms of section 5 and section 9, therefore, section 195 did not apply to payments.
Omprakash Gupta Vs ACIT (Central)- II (ITAT Indore) Conclusion: No addition could be made in case of concluded assessments and non abated assessments in absence of an incriminating material discovered during search. Held: In the assessment order, AO observed that once search was conducted and notice was issued u/s 153A, AO was bound to issue […]
AO, having accepted the fact that identity of subscribers had been proved, could not have proceeded to make addition only on the basis of charging higher premium, because charging higher premium on issue of shares was a decision between parties and AO would not have any role to play as long as genuineness of transaction was not in doubt. Therefore, addition on mere suspicion under section 68 could not be sustained.
Since the booking of bare shell of a flat was a construction of house property and not purchase, therefore, the date of completion of construction was to be looked into which was as per provision of section 54, therefore, AO was directed to allow benefit to assessee as claimed u/s.54.
We note that the fact that neither the statement relied on by the authorities below were provided to the assessee nor any cross examination was allowed to prove the veracity of the statement. We note that the fact that in the statement of third party, the name of the assessee was not implicated. Even otherwise, according to Learned Counsel, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee on the basis of untested statements without allowing opportunity of cross-examination.
Swati Luthra Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Assessee had entered into genuine transaction of sale and purchase of shares and therefore, satisfied the conditions of Section 10(38) as no law prohibits purchase of shares in cash and it was the option of the buyer of shares to keep the shares either in Demat form or […]
Since the director was not a shareholder when bonus was paid to him and also the bonus was not paid out of the earlier years’ accumulated profits, therefore, deduction of bonus paid to director was allowable under 36(1)(ii).
Smt. Sapna Chauhan Vs ITO (ITAT Agra) It is settled position in law that the question of Jurisdiction is not a matter of acquiescence. The proprietary of Notice under section 148, based upon ‘reasons recorded’ is not dependent upon the objection or no objection by the assessee at the stage of assessment. If the Reasons […]
ACIT Vs Rohini Hotel (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) A perusal of the Page Nos. 6-13 of the Paper Book filed by the assessee shows that the assessee has filed certain reconciliation statements in respect of the shortfall of investments u/s. 68 added by the AO. The same are scanned and made a part of […]
Where the documentary evidences furnished by assessee clearly supported the claim of exemption under section 10(38) on account of sale of securities that assessee entered into genuine transaction of sale of shares through recognized exchange upon which STT had also been paid and there was no other evidence available on record against assessee so as to make the impugned addition under section 68, accordingly, addition was to be deleted.
