In the present case there were the three issues which were decided by the Hon’ble Tribunal where it was held that whenever the transactions have been made through proper banking channel, then invocation of section 68 will not be valid.
The object and activities of the assessee were entrusted to it by RBI as a part of its supervisory role over the bank in India. Revenue doubted that assessee is engaged in commercial activities and hence proviso of section 2 (15) was applicable to the case of assessee and hence not eligible for exemption u/s 11.
Whether expenditure paid in cash, which is not disallowed u/s 37 (1), can be disallowed under section 40A(3). Whether provision of section 54F are applicable where nature of property turned into commercial purpose.
During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had received a loan of Rs.30.00 lakhs in cash on 10.05.2009 thereby violating the provisions of section 269S of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, penalty notice u/s 271D of the I.T. Act was issued to the assessee on 25.04.2013 which was duly served on the assessee.
The Hon’ble Tribunal held that all the persons questioned have confirmed that cheques have been handed over to the appellant only as a measure of security for supply of scrap or for the purpose of obtaining the loan, but all of them have denied having obtained any loan from the appellant. The statements given by those people remains uncontroverted.
The Hon’ble Tribunal agreeing to the contentions of the assessee held that regarding GBR, payments made to them were only towards reimbursement of shipment charges and therefore, no tax was deducted at source. Assessee did not attract the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as reimbursement of expenses do not consist the income of the recipient
The Hon’ble Tribunal while relying on the Judgment of co-ordinate Bench in the Assessee’s own case which was having similar facts in which it was observed that the advance was treated as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) because it was converted as advance in the name of assessee merely through book entries and actually no money
The CIT(A) remanded the matter and according to the remand report cash deposits were not explainable as there was cash in hand. Also, it was came to known that Assessee maintained one more account in Vijaya Bank which was not shown to the Department. Regarding the rental receipts it was observed by the AO
Revenue submitted that there was no change of opinion as contended by assessee and accepted by the Ld.CIT(A) as assessee has not furnished ‘Project Completion Certificate’ nor furnished the complete details of AOP as pointed out by the AO. It was the submission that the original project has started way back in 1996 and therefore
Impugned order has been passed by the Ld. CIT under section 263 without considering the explanation offered by the assessee and without applying his mind. The failure of the Ld. CIT, however, does not constitute any legal infirmity to make the order passed by him under section 263 invalid
