AO required assessee-company to prove genuineness of share capital along with premium received by it. Assessee furnished various evidences in that regard. However, AO made addition under section 68 on the ground that in response to summons under section 131 shareholder companies had not appeared for personal deposition.
ITO Vs Max Ventures Investment Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) An addition can be made u/s 69B of the Act where during any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, which exceeds the amount recorded on this count in the […]
ITO Vs M/s Citymaker Builder Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) As two of the share applicant companies as per the information received by the A.O from the office of the DGIT(Inv), Mumbai, were the companies controlled an infamous accommodation entry provider, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the lower authorities to have carried out […]
In this case assessee was asked to explain penalty on one count, whereas Penalty has been levied on other count. This itself called for quashing of penalty order passed by AO for all years under consideration. Therefore, penalty order was quashed and set aside.
Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The issue for consideration before us is whether in such cases, the legal evidence produced by the assessee has to guide our decision in the matter or the general observations based on statements, probabilities, human behavior and discovery of the modus operandi adopted in earning alleged bogus […]
The claim of deduction under section 54EC could not be disallowed since assessee has demonstrated that non–investment in REC Bonds within the stipulated period was due to non–availability of bonds in the market.
Where assessee had explained source of the cash deposit in the bank account by producing copies of the bills of sale of agricultural produce, which supported the explanation of assessee that assessee had received cash out of sale of agriculture produce, no addition under section 68 was warranted.
Valuation of the shares should be made on the basis of various factors and not merely on the basis of financials and the substantiation of the fair market value on the basis of the valuation done by the assessee simply cannot be rejected where the assessee has demonstrated with evidence that the fair market value of the asset is much more than the value shown in the balance sheet.
Manne Hareesh Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Ld. AO that the assessee has debited in his P & L Account an amount of Rs. 2,40,000 towards Accounting Charges. On query, it was explained by the assessee that the outstanding amount of Rs. 2,40,000 was […]
whether AO is correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled exemption u/s.54 of the Act by rejecting the claim of the assessee to have deposited in capital gain deposit account?
