Section 254 does not indicate that Tribunal can recall entire order and pass a fresh decision and power to rectify a mistake under section 254(2) could not be used for recalling entire order.
The assessee has failed to bring on record any evidence to establish his claims that the deposits in the ICICI Bank, saving bank account at Khar (W), Mumbai was out of receipts connected with his business transactions
In ACIT Vs. Texool Ltd., the Mumbai ITAT allowed deduction on rent directly paid to the authority on behalf of Lessor under an Oral agreement. However, the relief was granted subject to a condition that the lessor has offered the same in his return of income.
These two appeals are by the assessees against the respective orders of the CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad dated 29.07.2016. Even though many issues are contested, mainly the issue pertain to whether the income offered by the assessee has to be assessed under capital gains or under ‘other sources.
6. The ld. CIT(A) on consideration of the assessment order, assessee’s submissions and the case laws relied upon by the assessee, has held as under: The only dispute in the instant case is whether the interest paid by the assessee to the bank on loan availed for purchase of property could be allowed as deduction in computing the capital gains income.
A discretion has been conferred on the ITO U/s 69 of the Act to treat the source of investment as income of the assessee if the explanation offered by the assessee is not found satisfactory. However, the said discretion should be exercised keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a particular case. when it is claimed that the assessee could not possibly have any source of income, the addition on his hand is not justified within the parameters of the Income Tax Act.
Circular No. 35 issued by Board clearly states the losses arising due to negligence of employees has to be allowed as expense if the loss took place in the normal course of the business and the amount involved was necessarily kept for the purpose of business. In the present case, the losses were necessarily incurred in the normal course of business of assessee and therefore, the expenditure was allowable.
Appellant has been held liable as assessee in default merely due to technical flaws. Demand has been raised merely due to fault of system and in view of the CBDT’s Instruction No.5/2013 dated 08.07.2013, the demand cannot be sustained.
Expense was classified under the head major repair and maintenance on the ground that the large expense was spent on repair and maintenance but the fact is that there was no enhancement in the capacity of the plant and machinery as well as no increase in the efficiency.
ITAT Hyderabad has held in the case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Lanco Infratech Limited held that Mobilisation/ trade advance has been wrongly treated as trade receivable. It is not to be subjected to TP. It cannot be re-characterised as receivables. Moreover, advances given as part of contract work does not require any special addition, when […]
