ITAT states that, once the source of deposit is explained as prior withdrawal from the bank of more than the amount deposited subsequently then the creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction cannot be doubted.
It cannot be said that the shares of the profit in AOP of members is determinate or known. Thus on cumulative consideration of all clause the three agreement entered into it is crystal clear that shares members of AOP are indeterminate and unknown, therefore the provisions of sub section (1) to Section 167B of the Act are squarely applicable and we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.
The appeal has been filed against the addition of Rs. 11,12,211/- made by the learned AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeals) treating the said amount as not commission but as salary income without allowing deduction u/s. 37 of the IT. Act, 1961, the expenses incurred to earn the said commission. But in fact, the entire receipt is commission and not salary as it would be clear going though the fact of the case.
The issue under consideration is whether denial of the exemption under section 11/12 due to various discrepancies found in verification of unsecured loans is justified in law?
Once revenue allowed the deduction for the depreciation claimed by the assessee, then it is debarred to reject the claim of the assessee in the subsequent year on the WDV carried forward from the earlier assessment year.
ITO Vs Shri Deepak Chadha (ITAT Delhi) Mere Doubting Expenditure On Construction Without Evidence On Sole Basis Of Inspector Report Is Invalid In the present case the addition has been made by the ld AO on the basis of mere presumptions. The market value of the flat determined by the ld AO was without any […]
Where corpus donation could not be verified as donor was not co-operating in providing details, it was rightly treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68.
Mr. Satyender Yadav Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is not in dispute that assessee is owner of the Car. The assessee explained that car is sold for cash of Rs.3,21,900/- to Shri Parvender Singh who has executed an affidavit in favour of the assessee, confirming the purchase of the Car. The A.O. did not examine […]
The learned CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has not filed detail of expenses before the Assessing Officer, still he restricted the disallowance for other expenses to 10% of the total expenses without any justification and only on the basis of the magnitude of the disallowance. The learned CIT(A) should have examined the books of accounts along with bills and vouchers to decide the issue of disallowance of other expenses and depreciation.
On perusal of the impugned orders would indicate that the ld.CIT(A) has simply concurred with the AO without formulating specific points and taking note of details available before the Id.CIT(A). In a way, the appeals were dismissed in summary manner. This act is amounting to miscarriage of justice. This exercise of power at the end of the ld.CIT(A) is not in coherence with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Act, therefore, ITAT set aside all these orders and restore all the issues in these three assessment years to the file of the Id.CIT(A) for deciding them on merit.
