AO required assessee-company to prove genuineness of share capital along with premium received by it. Assessee furnished various evidences in that regard. However, AO made addition under section 68 on the ground that in response to summons under section 131 shareholder companies had not appeared for personal deposition.
ITO Vs Max Ventures Investment Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) An addition can be made u/s 69B of the Act where during any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, which exceeds the amount recorded on this count in the […]
In this case assessee was asked to explain penalty on one count, whereas Penalty has been levied on other count. This itself called for quashing of penalty order passed by AO for all years under consideration. Therefore, penalty order was quashed and set aside.
Where assessee had explained source of the cash deposit in the bank account by producing copies of the bills of sale of agricultural produce, which supported the explanation of assessee that assessee had received cash out of sale of agriculture produce, no addition under section 68 was warranted.
Valuation of the shares should be made on the basis of various factors and not merely on the basis of financials and the substantiation of the fair market value on the basis of the valuation done by the assessee simply cannot be rejected where the assessee has demonstrated with evidence that the fair market value of the asset is much more than the value shown in the balance sheet.
Where registration of the Trust does not involve inquiry into the actual activities or application of the funds etc., particularly when there was nothing on record to make out that the object of the Trust or activities of the Trust were not genuine, therefore, CIT(E) had no ground to decline the registration under section 12AA.
M/s JDC Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) A careful reading of Section 147 clearly shows that it empowers the learned AO to assess or re-assess the income in respect of any issue which had escaped the assessment irrespective of the fact that whether such aspect was adverted to in respect of the reasons […]
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.
