Where revision petition was filed by assessee in respect of its individual and also for firm’s return to claim expenses in firm’s return which were claimed in its personal return, CIT was not justified in dismissing revision application without looking into the matter, therefore, it was remanded back to CIT to consider afresh.
In this case the assessee had imported coal prior to the introduction of goods and service tax regime and had already paid clean energy cess at the prescribed rate. On the stock which the petitioner had not cleared, no credit had been allowed on such cess and Department again asked to pay fresh cess under the Goods and Service Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017. In view of the fact that the validity of a Union legislation is questioned, court ordered for notice to be issued.
Where assessee was earning exempt income and no dis allowance was made by it and AO was of view that assessee failed to prove that own funds were utilized for investment, therefore, AO proceeded to compute dis allowance of interest paid on borrowed funds, however, it ignored the interest income earned by assessee, AO was not justified since for the purpose of dis allowance net interest expenses were to be taken.
An issue which had been examined in detail during original assessment itself, could not be re-examined in exercise of powers of reassessment, therefore, notice under section 148 was set aside.
Where assessee paid interest on term loan which had entirely been used for purpose of purchasing the assets for purpose of business which were hypothecated to bank and it had sufficient interest-free funds to take care of advances, the deduction under section 36(1)(iii) was allowable.
Assessee sold 3,10,000 shares and claimed resulting gains as exempt under section 10(38). AO denied the exemption on the ground that as the shares were not held by the assessee for more than 12 months period, therefore, same could not be considered as long-term capital assets.
This Court while deciding a Reference needs to keep in mind the limitations of its role. It does not sit in appeal over the decision making process of the Disciplinary Committee and the recommendations so made by the Council of the Institute. Hence in examining the Report and the recommendation of the Council it cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record or assess the findings of the Committee as an Appellate Authority.
Assessee’s contention that adding the entire amount of bogus purchases would give a completely distorted figure and the gross profit would be higher than the total turnover. Such bogus purchases were for off-setting the purchases from producers and agriculturists directly who would not have the billing facility. Only question seriously paused before us was, was the Tribunal justified in adopting the gross profit rate of 8% as against 25% adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals)?
Where on account of an inadvertent error, PAN of the deductee was wrongly mentioned by assessee, in TDS return, AO was not justified in not permitting the assessee to correct PAN of the deductee, putting the limitation of permitting corrections of only four characters. The case was, therefore, remanded.
Ptitioner has vehemently submitted that in present case compounding application of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that it is not the first offence of petitioner.
