Admittedly, the contributions of the assessees to the Provident Fund are not a recognized Fund, the same are not eligible for deduction u/s. 80C (2) (vi) of the I.T. Act.
We note that GP rate on the accounted sales estimated by the assessee himself stands at 07.29%. We thus fail to understand as to how the GP for the unaccounted sale should be so lower at 03.56% which is less than half of the GP rate declared by the assessee himself on accounted sales.
In the present appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Jamnagar [CIT(A)- in short] in confirming the addition of Rs.3,25,528/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
Revenue is believed to prove that the activities undertaken by the alleged company are not meeting commercial prudence and the working of this company is merely to provide accommodation entries.
Provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are applicable not only to the amounts which is shown as payable on the date of balance sheet but it is applicable to such expenditure which becomes payable at any time during the relevant previous year and was actually paid within the previous year.
Since TIPS were received from customers and not from employer these would be chargeable in the hands of employee as income from other sources and section 192 would not get attracted on facts of case.
Amounts shown as liabilities / Outstanding in the Balance Sheet cannot be deemed to be “cessation of liability” under Section 41(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 merely because the liabilities are outstanding for several years. Assessing Officer has to bring on record any material evidence to establish that there was cessation of liability in respect of the outstanding creditors balances represented in the assessee’s Balance Sheet.
The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a concern which is eligible for claiming exemption u/s 10A of the Act and therefore, all of its income is exempt from tax in India and hence there is no intention to shift its profit outside India and more so, when the tax rates in USA, where the AEs are located, is higher than in India.
ITAT held that that if interest income does not result at all, there cannot be any tax and that if an income has not materialized, then merely an entry made about a hypothetical income by following book keeping methods, the liability to tax cannot be attracted.
Plain language of sub-section (2) of Section 150 clearly restricts the application of sub-section (1) of Section 150 to enable the authorities to reopen the assessments which have not already become final on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed u/s 149(2) of the Act.
