Assessment order passed u/s. 158BC r.w.s 143(3) / 254 dated 31.12.2019 determining the undisclosed income of about Rs. 57.43 crores against Mr.D was barred by limitation as per provisions of section 153(2A) and liable to be quashed as AO ought to have passed assessment order on 14.04.2019 whereas the impugned order was passed on 31.12.2019.
No addition can be made to the income of the assessee in this asst. years, as in the view of the AO the outstanding liability in question is bogus and non-existent. The question of cessation of such non-existent as bogus liability does not arise. Hence, Sec. 41(1) cannot be applied. Only when there is a genuine liability and there is cessation of such liability or it is written off in the books of account, then Sec. 41(1) of the Act can be applied.
ITO Vs Richmond Vivek Laboratories P Ltd (ITAT Hyderabad) Learned CIT (DR) vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the impugned misc. expenditure disallowance of Rs.1,92,38,312/- despite the fact that the assessee had failed to prove the same by way of filing […]
Shri Subbaraya Annamalai Siva Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderbad) Ld.DR fails to dispute the clinching fact that the Pr. CIT’s impugned order has nowhere held the assessment in question dated 06.01.2015 as an erroneous one so far as it causes prejudice to the interest of Revenue as per Sec.263 of the Act. Ld.Pr.CIT has rather […]
Therefore, reasons are to be examined only on the basis of reasons as recorded. Here, in this case, I note that the A.O on mistaken facts resorted to reopening which is an admitted fact on a perusal of re-assessment order (supra). Therefore, the condition precedent for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act is found to be absent and, therefore, the reopening itself is bad in law and therefore, the impugned notice u/s 148 of the Act is quashed and therefore, the consequent action of making addition of Rs.9,80,494/- is null in the eyes of law.
The provisions of the DTAA cannot be thrusted upon the Assessee simply because the Assessee is a tax resident of a country with which India has entered into a tax treaty or on account of the mere perception of the AO that the Assessee may claim benefits under the tax treaty in subsequent years. 2. Short term losses should be eligible to be carried forward.
Venkatesh Soutoor Tirupati Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) As regards the cash withdrawals and the marriage gifts from others and gift from his brother as sources for the balance of cash deposit is concerned, I find that the Assessing Officer has held the ATM withdrawals and also 2/3rd of the gifts at the time of marriage […]
DCIT Vs Deloitee Haskins and Sells (ITAT Ahmedabad) The first controversy that arises for our adjudication whether the interest free advances were given by the assessee to its group concern as a measure of commercial expediency in the given facts and circumstances. The expression “commercial expediency” refers to those transactions/ expenditures which are not required […]
Disallowance made under section 14A was not to be added for computing the book profit, therefore, AO had not erred in directing to exclude difference under section 14A for computing the big profit under section 115JB.
We first of all advert to the impugned Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s.194C and 194J issue of surrogacy payments in case of Shri S.Sesha Sai since the other recipient has never appeared to support the impugned claims till date. The CIT(A)’s identical lower appellate discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action disallowing assessee’s summary of payments made to surrogate mothers reads as under:
