Since the unaccounted money as alleged by the AO was the loan, which was repaid subsequently by assessee, addition made on account of unverifiable unsecured loans was unjustified.
Not passing a speaking order rejecting the objections of assessee to reopening of assessment but passing an order under section 147 making the additions based on reasons recorded had caused serious prejudice to interest of assessee. Thus, reopening had not been done in accordance with the law by AO and, therefore, reassessment order was set aside.
The expense incurred for getting the finance for normal business operations does not provide any enduring benefit to the assessee as such, the one-time loan processing fees was revenue expenditure allowable to assessee.
ITAT held that Satellite transmission services provided by USA based company in India could not be brought to tax by treating the same as royalty income and amendment to the Income Tax Act, 1961 with a retrospective or prospective effect, cannot be read in a manner so as to extend the operation to the terms of international treaty.
Addition on account of undisclosed stock/ production is not justified where no physical discrepancy was found/detected by the survey team and excess value of stock was merely because of difference in valuation of closing stock
As AO has not unearthed any incriminating during the course of search operation under section 132, so no addition could be made during the relevant assessment year under section 153A by reopening the assessment on the matter, which was already examined earlier during original asses
ITO Vs Shri Deepak Chadha (ITAT Delhi) Mere Doubting Expenditure On Construction Without Evidence On Sole Basis Of Inspector Report Is Invalid In the present case the addition has been made by the ld AO on the basis of mere presumptions. The market value of the flat determined by the ld AO was without any […]
Where corpus donation could not be verified as donor was not co-operating in providing details, it was rightly treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68.
Mr. Satyender Yadav Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is not in dispute that assessee is owner of the Car. The assessee explained that car is sold for cash of Rs.3,21,900/- to Shri Parvender Singh who has executed an affidavit in favour of the assessee, confirming the purchase of the Car. The A.O. did not examine […]
The learned CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has not filed detail of expenses before the Assessing Officer, still he restricted the disallowance for other expenses to 10% of the total expenses without any justification and only on the basis of the magnitude of the disallowance. The learned CIT(A) should have examined the books of accounts along with bills and vouchers to decide the issue of disallowance of other expenses and depreciation.
