Where there were two funds one which was already taxed and other had not and there were remittances during the accounting year for a certain sum, the source of which was not indicated then the presumption was that the remittances should have been from the fund which had already suffered tax. Thus, assessee was entitled to the telescoping benefit of the income surrendered during the year to the cash deposited in the bank account as the surrendered income which was invested in hundis were received back in cash and were duly accounted in the books of accounts.
Inordinate delay in filing of MAs is not a fit case for condonation, more so, because there is no specific provision in the realm of section 254(2) of the Act to provide for such condonation of delay in case of MAs.
Modern Malleables Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) Conclusion: Addition made u/s. 68 only on the basis of two statements which could not stand the scrutiny of law, was not justified and therefore, the addition could not be sustained as per law. Held: AO got information from the Investigation Wing pursuant to search operation conducted at […]
In our considered view therefore, although the name of the assessee does not feature in the panchnama, in view of the fact that warrant of authorization executed by the Department contained its name, the proceedings u/s 153A were validly initiated against the assessee.
The issue under consideration is whether sale of agricultural land after conversion taxing under capital gain or under business income? ITAT direct the A.O. to treat the property on sale of land as capital gains and given the benefit of exemption claimed by the assessee U/s 54F of the Act.
Addition in case of bogus purchases was required to be made only to the extent of lower GP declared by assessee on bogus purchases as compared to G.P. on normal purchases. Thus, no addition was warranted in case of assessee as GROSS PROFIT declared by assessee in respect of alleged bogus purchases was more than the GROSS PROFIT declared in the normal purchases.
Penalty under section 271AAB levied on the basis of defective notice could not be sustained as there was no mention about various conditions provided u/s 271 AAB as it was incumbent upon AO to mention in notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB as to under which clause of section 271AAB penalty was leviable and that too, at which rate.
Hon’ble Court has held that the addition has to be made on the basis of GP of the assessee. Accordingly, ITAT set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the AO to apply a rate of 3% on the bogus purchases.
We say so as it may well, in view of the joint residence, be that no area (portion) is specified in the rent agreements. The number of family members living jointly; their living requirements – which may not be uniform; fair rental value of the property, etc., are some of the parameters which could be considered for the purpose. The AO shall adjudicate thereon per a speaking order, giving definite reasons for being in disagreement, where so, in whole or in part, with the assessee’s working, within a reasonable time. We decide accordingly. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the aforesaid terms.
The issue under consideration is that whether the rent received as per the option agreement is chargeable to tax under the head ‘ Income from house property’ or under the head ‘ Income from Other sources’?
