Considering the nature of business of assessee, i.e., consultancy services carried out from residence, possibility of personal use of the car could not be ruled out, therefore, AO was justified in disallowing part of vehicle running and maintenance expenses.
Hon’ble ITAT upheld the position of law as iterated by CIT (A) that it is an established law applicable for imposition of penalty that law, as in force, at the time of filing of Return would be applicable.
We are of the view that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee merely because reply has not been received by the AO in response to notice issued under Section 133(6). The AO having issue the notice and such notice having been served on the person concerned, the AO has to take the process to the logical end. He cannot draw adverse inference merely because reply has not been received.
In the case of Genpact Infrastructure (Bhopal) Pvt. Ltd, Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) recently held that addition cannot be made since the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the non-existent amalgamated company and not on the amalgamating company.
It is unbelievable that a professional like Advocate, C.A. or Accountant, would open a bank account with his client. The Ld. D.R. rightly contended that any professional would open a bank account for an assessee if unaccounted transactions are conducted on behalf of the assessee.
AO disallowed 20% of total foreign travel expenses during the year under consideration. CIT(A) recorded that for assessment year 2000-01 and 2001-02 the disallowance was restricted to 10% of the total expenses incurred for foreign travel, against which Revenue preferred appeal to Delhi ITAT.
It is apparent that when the assessee could not establish the genuineness of the impugned transaction before the Assessing Officer that it decided to surrender an amount of Rs. 55 lakh. Thus, the factual matrix indicates that the assessee made the surrender when it had no explanation to offer. Thus, the assessee could not prove the bona fide of its claim.
Where assessee did not furnish any evidence of earning agricultural income shown in return of income merely because assessee was holding agricultural land of 20 bighas would not prove that assessee earned any agricultural income or has any past savings so as to make any investment in the property.
Section 13 comes into play at the time of granting exemption under section 11 and not at the time of granting registration under section 12AA, therefore, CIT was not justified in denying registration on the ground that assessee trust had not got its account audited and not filed its return of income for preceding years.
When motor vehicles are in the gross block of the company and used for business it cannot ipso facto lead to an inference that the depreciation has to be partly disallowed on the assumption that these are partly used for personal use: Claridges Hotels case.
