CIT (A) appeal as well as ITAT examined the document relied upon the revenue for making addition. It was found that the document was not addressed to anyone and without any signature and date. In such situation it can be said that it belong to assessee.
In the language of Section 2 (22) (e) the term beneficial owner of shares includes both registered as well as beneficial share holder. So provisions of this section could be applied where assessee can be treated as both mentioned above.
The facts in that case were that the assessee had booked a flat, and was recipient of a provisional allotment letter. The Court held importantly that even booking rights or rights to purchase the apartment or to obtain its letter was also capital asset
There are various case laws which conclude the facts that once the assesse discharged its primary onus by placing material and document on record before AO then it is assumed that the unexplained amount reflected in books of assessee stands explained.
Whether in absence of proper service of notice u/s 143 (2) assessment proceedings for relevant Assessment year can be validated.
In AY 1994-15, the assessee (Sarita Aggarwal) had shown credit of Rs.2,60,000/- in the capital account under the narration Gift. The Assessing Officer disbelieved the claim and made an addition of the aforesaid amount to the income as declared, holding that the assessee was unable to establish genuineness of the gift.
Whether assessee has defaulted in payment in payment of additional amount of income-tax payable on the income disclosed in the original application and provision of section 245D (2C) can be invoked in such circumstances.
Clearing difference has been determined on the basis of statement of purchase and sales of shares of security made on assessee’s behalf by the broker. CIT(A) decided this issue after examining the ledger accounts maintained by the assessee and contract notes issued by the broker.
The respondent assessee in all these appeals are partnership firms engaged in the business of banking and registered under the Kerala Money Lending Act. The assessees had filed return of income and the same was accepted in due course.
It was stated that in J.P.Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax; (1998)229 ITR 123, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, after noticing that sub-Section 9 of Section 80-HH was amended by Act No.30 of 1981, Section 80-HH and Section 80-I were independent and consequently
