CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition wrongly made under section 153A of the Act, without there being any adverse material on record against the assessee; that since the assessee had no business income, no books of account were maintained and the addition was made only on the basis of the assessee’s pass book, which is not a book of account; that as such, the addition made under section 68 of the Act is not sustainable.
It is well settled that where two non jurisdictional High Court’s decisions are opposed to each other, the one in favor of the assessee is required to be followed by the Tribunal.
Assessee cannot be considered as having done willful neglect for non-compliance of the TDS provisions. This is just a technical mistake and, accordingly, the assessee cannot be held to be an assessee in default and no penalty can be imposed.
Where in the assessment order, penalty proceedings have been initiated mentioning a specific charge and in the accompanying notice, the assessee is called upon to furnish his explanation in respect of both the charges, the notice obviously suffers from either non-application of mind or diffidence on the part of the AO.
Priyank Mittal Vs. ITO (ITAT Agra) A perusal of the reasons recorded by the AO shows that the allegation as per the reasons to believe escapement of income is bogus purchase/sale of shares, while the impugned addition has been made with respect to gift, which shows that the A.O. had no specific information. Hence, as […]
Agra ITAT has remitted the file back to the CIT(Appeals) as CIT (Appeals) had just sustained Assessing Officer’s order without himself discussing or deciding the merits of the case.
Brief facts relating to the case are that a survey 133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of the assessee on 15/10/2009 during the course of which it was found that the assessee had deducted tax amounting to Rs.15,76,219/-
In the absence of any addition having been made on incomes which the AO had reason to believe had escaped assessment, no addition of any other income could have been made and that the AO had exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order u/s 147.
In the assessment order passed u/s.144 the income was at Rs.12,96,457/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,20,000/-. During the course of assessment proceeding, the AO found that there was a cash deposit of Rs.11,76,457/- in the bank account of the assessee maintained with ICICI Bank.
As long as the expense is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning an income, even if it is not necessarily for earning that income, it will still be deductible in computation of income. What thus logically follows is that even in a situation in which proximate or immediate cause of an expenditure was an event unconnected to earning of the income
