Where assessee did not explain satisfactorily about excess gold found from his employee’s possession, addition made under section 69 was as such, rightly made.
In this case AO has made addition merely on the basis of ledger extract filed by the assessee on the assumption that the said payments are interest payments which attracts TDS under the provisions of section 194A of the Act, without conducting further inquiries in the background of the assessee’s claim that the said payments […]
In the instant case, the deductee has filed the return of income on 14.12.2012 and the long term capital gains resulted into capital loss which resulted into nil demand. According to the assessee, there was no tax payable by the deductee on the transaction of sale of immovable property. When there is no tax payable by the deductee on sale of land, there is no question of charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act, as per instruction No.2 of 2014 dated 26.2.2014 and the circulars are binding on the Departmental officers. Therefore, we hold that there is no case for charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act as per instruction No.2 of 2014 and accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
If second borrowing has really been used to repay the original loan and this fact is proved to the satisfaction of AO, interest paid on the second loan would also be allowed as deduction under section 24.
A reader should be able to come to his / her own conclusion by applying the legislative enactments and judicial pronouncements to the facts of the case. While re-producing any portion of legislative enactment or judicial pronouncement, it is para phrased and emphasis is supplied by way of underline.
When the Assessing Officer has not accepted the consent of the assessee in toto then the said consent cannot be applied as a Doctrine of estoppels against the assessee and the assessee has a legal right to challenge the assessment order before the appellate authority.
In M/s. Peoples Education Society Vs. DCIT(E), the ITAT, Bengaluru held that the assessee- society is not entitled to exemption in respect of investment in fixed asset using loan amount under section 11 of the Income Tax Act.
Having held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) shall have retrospective effect the question arises that if the recipients of interest in question have already considered the same for computing their income offered to tax then the dis allowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) is not attracted.
In P.G Sunandamma Vs. ITO, the ITAT, Bangalore, held that the transfer of excise license to a member of HUF on death of Karta cannot be reason to assess HUFs income in the hands of that individual member.
Vision EL Tech & Services (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) From the details filed it is observed that there are several instances of fresh investment as well as sale of investment in shares, evidencing frequent movement in the assessee’s investment portfolio and accordingly it cannot be accepted that no expenditure has been incurred by […]
