The loan transactions were on the capital account and the writing off the loan was also on capital account and did not find place in the Profit and Loss Account. Apart from this it has been found as a matter of fact that the assessee had not got the benefit of any allowance or deduction in the assessment for any prior year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by assessee.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Honda Cars India Limited vs. DCIT that Since the petitioner is not an eligible assessee in terms of Section 144C(15)(b), no draft order can be passed in the case of the petitioner U/s. 144C(1). Section 144C (15)(b) of the Act defines an “eligible assessee”
Court explained that the assessment for the block period can only be done on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of account or documents and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer.
Revenue was to initiate proceedings under Section 147 against the deceased Assessee for AY 2008-09. The limitation for issuance of the notice under Section 147/148 was 31st March 2015. On 27th March 2015, when the notice was issued, the Assessee was already dead.
Back office operations carried on at an office would fall within the exclusionary clause of Article 5(3) (e) of the Treaty between India and United States which is also identically worded as Article 5(3) (e) of the India-UAE DTAA.
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Mansarovar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. that Mr. Rattan Gupta was not only doing the audit work of the five Assessee companies, but determining who should be the directors of the said companies.
Statements recorded would certainly constitute information and if such information is relatable to the evidence or material found during search, the same could certainly be used in evidence in any proceedings under the Act as expressly mandated by virtue of the explanation to Section 132(4).
It is clear that the AO did not apply his mind independently and went by the order of the CIT. It is a settled law that a quasi-judicial authority cannot afford to act on the direction and in the present case on the direction of a superior officer.
Delhi High Court held In the case of Denso India Limited vs. CIT that there can be no dispute that the AO would normally accept the figures given in TP report, if they do not call for his interference. However, his job also extends to critically evaluating materials and in cases which do require scrutiny, go ahead and do so.
Delhi High Court held In the case of ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT that absence of a provision similar to sec. 40(a) (i) does not mean that the Assessee would also be disentitled to claim deduction on account of salaries in the year to which such expenses pertained even though
