Whether Ld.CIT(A) is correct in denying additional claims on the ground that claims were not made by way of filing the revised return under Section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the assessee did neither claim those additional claims in the Original/Revised return nor claimed before Assessing Officer but were claimed first time before the ld.CIT(A)?
Where, the assessee, apart from furnishing the permanent account number of the creditor, has also furnished their balance sheet, copy of income tax return, confirmation, bank account etc. The amount advanced to the assessee is duly disclosed in the balance sheet of all the creditors.
That mere incorporation and receipt of share application money cannot be said to be commencement of the business. Neither any interest income has been earned from against advances nor any goods or services been obtained.
The appellant is a doctor, surgeon specializing in liver transplant. It is a fact that the appellant is following mercantile system of accounting on a regular basis. The appellant has received life time consultancy fees which is accounted as advance from patients as per the principles of mercantile system of accounting.
Admittedly, learned CIT(A) admitted the fresh evidences but did not allow any opportunity to the Assessing Officer for examining those evidences or furnishing any evidence in rebuttal as required by sub-rule (3) of Rule 46A.
The undisputed fact accepted by the assessee is that Mr. Tarun Goyal was running a racket of providing accommodation entries by floating numerous companies. The modus operandi brought out by the AO in the assessment order, is not disputed by the assessee.
During the year only an amount of 4 lakh was invested out of the total investment of 3.39 crores. In the earlier years the assessment of the assessee were completed u/s 143(3) and the AO did not make any disallowance u/s 14A. The term loan taken by the assessee was for specific purposes and it cannot be alleged without proof that the term loan granted by the bank for specific purposes,
Whether the advances made by one trust to another trust registred u/s 12A of the Act and used by that trust for charitable purpose would qualify for exemption u/s 11 of the Act by the first trust irrespective of accounting treatment followed?
Optionally Fully Convertible Debentures (OFCDs) do not fall under and cannot be equated with receipt of ‘loan’ or ‘deposit’ under the provisions of Section 269SS of the IT Act, evidently, no violation of the said Section can be said to have been committed by the assessee to attract penalty u/s 271D.
MGF Automobiles Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The brief facts of the case are that search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, was carried out in the case of assessee on 12.09.2007 and, therefore, notice u/s 153 A of Income Tax Act dated 17.10.2008 was issued to the assessee requiring it to file income tax returns. The assessee filed returns of income for assessment year 2004-05 and assessment year 2005-06 declaring Nil income in respect of assessment year 2004-05 and income of Rs.50,04,700/- for assessment year 2005-06.
