The subsequent reversal of the legal position by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court does not authorize the department to reopen the assessement which stood closed on the basis of the law, as it stood at the relevant time.”
AO has not made any discussion regarding the subjects raised by the Ld. CIT u/s. 263 and the AO has mechanically accepted what the assessee wanted him to accept without any application of mind or enquiry. Further, no evidence had been placed that the claim made by assessee was objectively
Addition u/s 68 of the Act was made by the Assessing Officer when the assessee himself offered to include this amount in his total income and consented to pay the tax. Another addition of Rs. 1 lakh was also made when the assessee voluntarily preferred to include Rs. 1 lakh to his total income.
Facts apropos are that assessee, a firm of Chartered Accountants, filed its return for impugned assessment year on 30th September, 2008, declaring a total income of ~ 17,70,69,972/-. The assessment was completed on 31st December, 2010 under Section 143(3) of the Act
Contention of the Assessee :- The alleged Pen drive is not an admissible evidence, therefore the recording of reasons and consequent 148 proceedings based on the reasons of such unreliable evidence are bad in law.
In the present case, though the assessee was to receive monthly alimony which was to be taxable in the each year from conclusion of divorce agreement but in this case monthly payments were not received and, therefore, were not offered tax.
Assessee has sold/transferred a lease hold landed property at 36, SSGT road, Industrial area, Ghaziabad at a consideration of Rs.3,25,00,000/- to Sara exports Ltd. The said lease hold property was acquired by the assessee way back in 1971 as per the original elase deed dt. 26.8.71
The assessee is a Company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of facilities of sponge iron from iron ore, steel melting section for manufacturing of MS ingots from sponge iron and MS scrap, a rerolling mill for manufacturing of constructional and structural steels
A search and seizure operation was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 22.11.2006. Assessee is an individual filed the return of income at Rs.5,88,06,735/- on 02.09.2008. This amount included undisclosed investment in jewellery of Rs. 12,85,777/-
Assessing Officer ignored the very fact that there was a temporary lull in the business of the assessee and it was not a cessation of business of activity. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenses incurred by the assessee for continuation of its business which deserve
