A survey proceedings was carried out in the middle of the accounting year (on 1.12.2006) in the case of AHS Joint Venture, the sister concerns of the assessee firm. During the course of survey there was no incriminating material nor undisclosed income found in the hands of the assessee
The assessee is an individual. The return of income was filed on 29.7.2009 declaring an income of Rs. 36,04,069/- and agricultural income of Rs. 10,25,000/-. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act.
Even if the reopening is sustained, the primary burden that income has escaped assessment is on the shoulder of the assessing officer and after discharging this burden only, the onus shifts to the shoulder of the assessee.
Assessee entered into transactions of payment of job work charges to a related party, viz., M/s Razormed Inc. during the financial year relevant to assessment year under consideration without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of section 297 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Sec 153A cannot be used to re-agitate concluded assessment in the absence of any incriminating material. Hon’ble Agra ITAT Bench has in the order of DCIT V/S Kalyani Chaturvedi has held that assessments that have attained finality don’t abate at the time of search and they cannot be done de-novo u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the absence of any fresh incriminating material found during the course of search by observing as under :-
Hon’ble ITAT Delhi has held in the case of ITO(E) Vs. S.D.College Society (Lahore) that where the capital expenditure has been treated to have been applied for the object of the trust, allowance of deduction on account of depreciation will not amount to double deduction?
Assessing Officer has computed the taxable income of the assessee company under the normal provisions of the Act as well as under the special provisions of section 115JB of the Act. While computing the book profit u/s 115 JB, the Assessing Officer has not allowed the rebate on account
First of all it is to be mentioned that the rate of tax at what rate long term capital gains is to be charged, the assessee has declared long term capital gain and charged tax on the same at 20% as is evident from the acknowledgment of return filed before us.
After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is noticed that though the assessee did not extend co-operation to the AO during the assessment proceedings, but such deficiency was made good by submitting the relevant evidence before the ld.
Admittedly the impugned addition pertaining to the amount received by the assessee from M/s. Newell Rubbermaid Inc. has been upheld by the Tribunal. At the same time we also observed that in assessee’s appeal ITA No. 1235/2011 order vide dated 29.11.2011 (supra) the Hon’ble High Court
