Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Ld. Counsel for assessee contended that AO has wrongly made addition of the cash deposit in the bank account u/s 69 of the Act. We do not agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee because assessee made a cash deposit of the impugned amount […]
DCIT Vs Aarti Catalyst Solutions P. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad) In the present case on hand, the assessee has discharged his onus by providing details relating to the loan amount availed from the three creditors by producing their bank accounts, Income-Tax Returns, confirmation letters, etc. The AO has doubted source of the creditors thereby the AO […]
It is amply clear that the additions under sections 68 and 69C of the Act can be made provided the transaction takes place during the previous year / financial year. Further, for making addition under section 68 of the Act, the assessee must fail to offer explanation and for making addition under section 69C of the Act, the source of the expenditure must remain unproved. In the present case, the assessee had duly explained the sources of the credit and the expenditure, respectively.
We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We find that the interest levied u/s 234B of the Act was deleted by the DRP relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of GE Packaged Power 373 ITR 65 in which the Hon’ble High Court followed the decision in the case of Agence France Press 2015-TII-14-HC-DEL-Intl. From the scrutiny report, on DRP’s directions, the AO has accepted the deletion. But since the matter is subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, these appeals have been preferred.
We find that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are applicable only for consideration for issue of shares received by a company from any person who is a resident. Admittedly, the monies have been received in the instant case by the assessee company from a non-resident. Hence the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are also not applicable in the instant case.
Neogenetics Foods Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) From the perusal of the final Assessment Order (paragraph 4.5) it is clear that the only reason given by the AO for not accepting the genuineness of the transaction with M/s. Manoj Traders and M/s. K. S. Enterprises is failure of the assessee to furnish copy of […]
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) We note that the assessee has made a claim of deduction regarding donation made to the tune of Rs. 27,27,000/- but the AO disallowed the claim. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has given partial relief by allowing 50% of expenditure claimed as donation. We note that on similar […]
Ganesh Balkrishna Bende Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) Here is a case in which a salaried person pooled his lifelong endeavour for the further studies of his daughter. In such a panorama, a holistic approach needs to be adopted. When I consider the facts of the instant case as a whole, there remains no doubt whatsoever […]
ITO Vs Shree Deepak Banwarilal Agarwal (ITAT Surat) We find that during the assessment the AO made addition of 100% of purchases shown by the assessee from four parties which were managed by “PK Jain” and his group. The AO made addition on the basis of report of Investigation Wing about the search & seizure […]
DCIT Vs Omni Active Health Technologies Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Briefly, the assessee is in the business of trading of healthcare and Nutraceuticals Products. The assessee is being granted patents for the one of its process in United States. A US based company filed suit against the appellant in July, 2008 for infringement of the patents […]
