We have heard rival submission and perused the material on record. It is not disputed that the assessee had started the business of trading in shares from A.Y. 2007-08. For A.Y. 2007-08, assessee had earned profit of Rs.7,73,143/- which has been declared as “business income”
The only issue here is the addition of Rs.60 lacs made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained credit on account of the share application money. On going through the facts of the case, we notice that assessee has filed the relevant details which it could have filed in support of its contention
The company was incorporated on 24-11-2004 under the Indian Companies Act with the authorized capital of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- being minimum capital for the company obtaining membership of stock broker.
As per provisions of section 132B of the Act the assets seized u/s 132 or requisitioned u/s 132A may be adjusted towards the amount of any “existing liability”. The Explanation 2 attach to section 132B of the Act clarifies that for removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the “existing liability”
In the present case, we are dealing with a situation in which payment has been made to a non-resident taxpayer but the said non-resident taxpayer has taken into account the receipts in question in his business income and has already filed his income tax return under section 139(1)
Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax in his notice u/s 263 dated 18.3.2014 stated that prima facie deduction claimed u/s 80IC of the Act by the assessee is not justifiable on the following grounds :- 1. Assessee is assembling and trading LCDs and it is not carrying on manufacturing of goods.
At the time of hearing before us, it is submitted by the learned DR that the Assessing Officer had received definite information from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi with regard to accommodation entries being provided by various entry operators.
Hon’ble Delhi ITAT has in the case of DCIT v/s Heminder Kumari in ITA No. 4210-4213/Del/2013 has held that the information received by the Assessing officer from his investigation Wing, at best, be regarded as a prima-facie material, but could not be construed as conclusive for use against the assessee to fasten any tax liability, because the same was required to be corroborated by credible and independent evidence.
AO, in his remand report could not bring out any fact that the cash withdrawn from Saving Bank Account and partnership overdraft account was used for other purpose anywhere else then, merely because there was a time gap between withdrawal of cash and its further deposit to the bank account, the amount can not be treated as income from undisclosed sources u/s 69 of the Act in the hands of the assessee.
assessee had set up a unit at Baddi in Himachal Pradesh for packaging of Horlics, Boost for Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. The assessee filed its return of income claiming deduction u/s 80IC of Rs. 6,59,69,287/- @ 100% on the profits of the eligible business alleging
