9. I have gone through the records carefully and I am unable to find any reason for making addition in the hands of the assessee. The addition is based upon the search proceedings and seizure that took place in the case of Narendra Kumar Paraswani not in the hands of the firm. Even the statement that were recorded have not implicated the assessee in any manner
The Allahabad High Court also denied the credit of alleged purchases in Shri Ganesha Rice Mills by stating `So far as the question of deduction of purchases from the corresponding sales are concerned, we may mention that the applicant being a manufacturer of Chuni-Bhusi and purchases having been found to be bogus and there is no other purchases of Chuni-Bhusi, the benefit of deduction of such purchases has rightly been disallowed
In ACIT Vs Rogini Garments108 ITD 49 the Special Bench at Chennai held that relief allowed u/s 80-IA had to be deducted from profits and gains of assessee’s business on which relief u/s 80HHC of the Act is to be computed. Subsequently, the Madras High Court in SCM Creations 304 ITR 319 took a contrary view. The question whether Rogini Garments was impliedly overruled was referred
In Asstt. CIT v. Suman Construction (2009) 27 (II) ITCL 329 (Pune ‘A’-Trib) the assessing officer had noticed that the assessee had claimed salary to partners of Rs. 2,20,000. However, in his opinion as per the partnership deed filed along with the return in the past assessment year, there was no specification of this salary payable to the partners.
5. The assessee was subjected to search assessment, whereupon additions were made, which included disallowance of interest expenditure Rs.54,1800/- ; addition for unexplained cash credit Rs.10,500/-, and another disallowance of claim of set off of business loss Rs.18,698/-; totalling Rs.83,378/-. The assessee contended before the AO that the disallowance of interest expenditure on bank loan was only a technical addition
The first issue is taken up first for consideration. Section 139(5) permits the assessee to file a revised return on discovery of an omission or any wrong statement in the original return. Of course, only such return can be revised which has been filed under section 139 (1) or which has been filed pursuant to notice under section 142 (1).
We have duly considered the rival contentions and the material on record. The crux of the matter is to determine the true character of the receipt in the hands of the assessee and not the utilization thereof. The utilization will not determine the nature of the receipt. The assessee may mis-utilise the funds but that will not either determine or change the character of the receipt. The foremost thing to be appreciated is that the assessee has taken
18. We have heard both the parties and have gone through the orders, decisions and judgments and provisions of the Income-tax Act. From the facts, it is noticed that the objection of the revenue is with regard to the assessee’s failure to follow the AS-15 and the ‘actuarial method’ referred therein and not disputed the quantification of the ‘provision of gratuity. In other words, the incorrect quantification of the provision
7. The scope of section 263 has been determined by the propositions pro-founded by the Hon’bie Apex Court as well as other courts. For the revenue, an incorrect assumption of fact, incorrect assumption of law, failure to or routinely to conduct investigation in to the issue together with the ‘prejudicial to the interest of revenue’ are the approved grounds for assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263
20. Deduction which are allowed while computing business income have been laid down in section 30 to 36. section 37 is a residuary section extending the allowance of expenses to items of expenditure not covered by Section 30 to 36, the list of allowances enumerated in sections 30 to 36 being not exhaustive. An item of expenditure, which is wholly or exclusively for the purpose of business may be allowed to be deducted
