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AO, in his remand report could not bring out any fact that the cash withdrawn from Saving Bank Account and partnership overdraft account was used for other purpose anywhere else then, merely because there was a time gap between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
Dividend is not exempt under Section 10(34) read with Section 115-O because the companies from whom the assessee received the dividend has not paid dividend distribution tax. His claim is that the dividend received by the assessee company is exempt on account of mutuality
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26(SC) and decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Escorts Finance Ltd. (2009) 226 CTR (Del) 105 wherein it was held that where facts are clearly disclosed in the return
In the case of the assessee, summons issued by the Assessing Officer to the shareholder companies were duly served upon them and the shareholder companies responded to the Assessing Officer by affirming the investment made
