Explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act, 2021 proposing amendment in section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B is applicable only from 01.04.2021. These provisions impose a liability on an assessee and therefore cannot be construed as applicable with retrospective effect unless the legislature specifically says so. In the decisions referred to by us in the earlier paragraph of this order on identical issue the tribunal has taken a view that the aforesaid amendment is applicable only prospectively i.e., from 1.4.2021.
Vijayshree Food Products P. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The reopening has been challenged by the assessee stating that initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the income tax act is solely on the basis of the unverified, on rectified, unsubstantiated and unconfirmed statement of Mr Malu. It is further the claim of the assessee that […]
Jasmin K. Ajmera Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) It is settled legal proposition that the confession need corroboration with evidences. Though admission is an important piece of evidence but it is not conclusive and it is open to the assessee to show that it is incorrect. Therefore, retracted admission, in the absence of any incriminating material, […]
In our view, the loss on account of forfeiture of advance paid to Mr. Rakesh Rastogi is incidental to the business of the assessee and is allowable as a deduction under section 37(1) or under section 28 of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Harshad J. Choksi (supra).
ACIT Vs PC Jewellers Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Facts- AO disallowed the bank guarantee commission and credit card commission u/s 40(a)(ia) on the grounds that TDS is not deducted. AO rejected the diamond purchase from commission agent and added income @12.5% on the purchase alleging purchase as inflation of purchase price on purchases from accommodation entry […]
ACIT Vs Atlas Copco (India) Ltd. (ITAT Pune) Admittedly, the appellant had filed the primary details such as name, address, invoice, payment made, etc. However, the assessee could not furnish the confirmations from payees and for want of the confirmations, Assessing Officer made disallowance. The ld.CIT(A) following the decision of his order in the assessee’s […]
(i) Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No.67; (ii) Filing of Form No.67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and (iii) DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act.
Sunil Mathur Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur) The issue under consideration relates to source of cash deposits during the year in the two bank accounts maintained by the assessee amounting to Rs 13.5 lacs. In this regard, firstly, it is noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee has sold a property and consideration thereof […]
Madhu Solanki Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) In the present case, First of all, the outstanding balances related to the purchases made during the year under consideration and not brought forward balances. The AO did not get reply from both the trade creditors and hence he proceeded to assess the outstanding balances, while accepting the purchases […]
United Waterproofing Corporation Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We note that Ld. CIT(A) has enhanced the addition on account of bogus purchases to 100% of the bogus purchases as against 12.5% applied by the AO. The only reason given by the Ld. CIT(A) is that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of purchases and […]
