Shravan Choudhary Vs ACIT (ITAT Jaipur) If the transaction is a business transaction between the parties then the amount received under the said transaction cannot be held as loan or advance to be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee explained the facts regarding the loan given by the assessee […]
In view of the above mentioned parameters, ITAT found that the appellant has not been able to discharge even the basic onus to prove the genuineness of cash credits in his bank accounts. Therefore, in their considered view when the existence of the source of such cash deposits is not proven then the A.0 is fully justified in treating such cash deposits as unexplained and liable to be taxed.
Smt. Vatsala Asthana Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Regarding the payment made by the assessee before 31/03/2014, Hon7ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Shankar Lal Saini (supra) held that, where assessee, an individual deposited unutilized sale consideration in capital gains scheme within the due date of filing of belated tax return under section […]
Addition made by AO on account of suppression of profit and obtaining fictitious loss by assessee company by way of Client Code Modification (CCM) and on account of commission paid to brokers to obtain fictitious loss through CCM was to be deleted as AO had mechanically added amounts as income of assessee without verifying & furnishing
Any expenditure incurred for obtaining loan was allowable as revenue expenditure even if the loan was intended for acquiring a capital asset. Thus, upfront fee paid to bank was thus allowable.
Since the title in goods passed from foreign suppliers to assessee outside India at the port of shipment and AO failed to show as to how income of foreign parties was chargeable to tax in India, therefore, no income had accrued to foreign parties in India in terms of section 5 and section 9, therefore, section 195 did not apply to payments.
Omprakash Gupta Vs ACIT (Central)- II (ITAT Indore) Conclusion: No addition could be made in case of concluded assessments and non abated assessments in absence of an incriminating material discovered during search. Held: In the assessment order, AO observed that once search was conducted and notice was issued u/s 153A, AO was bound to issue […]
AO, having accepted the fact that identity of subscribers had been proved, could not have proceeded to make addition only on the basis of charging higher premium, because charging higher premium on issue of shares was a decision between parties and AO would not have any role to play as long as genuineness of transaction was not in doubt. Therefore, addition on mere suspicion under section 68 could not be sustained.
Since the booking of bare shell of a flat was a construction of house property and not purchase, therefore, the date of completion of construction was to be looked into which was as per provision of section 54, therefore, AO was directed to allow benefit to assessee as claimed u/s.54.
We note that the fact that neither the statement relied on by the authorities below were provided to the assessee nor any cross examination was allowed to prove the veracity of the statement. We note that the fact that in the statement of third party, the name of the assessee was not implicated. Even otherwise, according to Learned Counsel, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee on the basis of untested statements without allowing opportunity of cross-examination.
