Shree Shiv Vankeshawar Educational & Social Welfare Trust Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Admittedly the assessee has received a donation of INR 16265000/– from 1038 individuals and ld CIT (A) has noted that same is credited to the income and expenditure account of the assessee, However ld AO has noted that same is credited as Corpus […]
Assessee had incurred only office expenditure and no expenditure relating to transportation of goods such as loading, unloading charge etc., has been debited, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee actually engaged himself not in the transportation business, but only facilitating or arranging transportation for various parties and he is a mere lorry booking agent. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the assessee cannot be held as the person responsible for deduction of tax at source and to the facts of the case the provisions under section 194C of the Act have no application.
Shri Ashok Kumar Chauhan Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) We find that first of all, the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order has simply made the addition on the ground that assessee during the course of survey has offered sum of Rs.20 lacs towards investment in furnishing and in equipments in showroom over and above the […]
In the instant case, has received cash loan from her parents and brother to meet the stamp duty cost for purchase of a house property for her own living, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act and the provisions of section 273B will come to the rescue of the assessee as a reasonable cause.
Since no notice under section 143(2) had been issued for completion of the re-assessment proceedings, therefore, the re-assessment order itself was bad in law and the same could not be revised under section 263.
Since the stock sold was very old, it was not strange to sell them at reduced rate and AO had no authority to compel assessee as to at which rate, assessee had to make sale of its goods, hence, deduction of trading loss on sale of stock was allowable.
Where no satisfaction had been recorded by the AO for initiation of penalty in the assessment order the same cannot invite the assessee to penalty under section 271(1)(c)
Cash payments in excess of Rs. 20,000 made on bank/public holidays towards purchase of construction materials in the activity of real estate development could not be subjected to disallowance under section 40A(3) in view of rule 6DD(J).
Where AO was of the view that a shareholder of assessee-company had no means to make the subscription of share capital, AO could have asked the source of investment from the shareholder and if the source was not properly explained, addition could have been made in the hands of shareholder as unexplained income but no addition could be made u/s 68 in the hands of assessee-company since it had discharged the initial onus cast upon it by virtue of provisions of section 68.
Assessment made by AO under section 153A was was barred by limitation as though assessment order was dated 28-3-2013, however, it was served on assessee on 18-4-2013, i.e., after expiry of period on which assessment order was liable to be time-barred as per section 153, i.e., 31-3-2013.
