The issue under consideration is whether the addition made u/s 69 by AO due to undisclosed sources of cash deposits in bank account is justified in law?
The issue under consideration is whether reopen assessment u/s 147 based on the same material which is examined by AO in original assessment is justified in law?
he auditors in their tax audit report have also not mentioned of any violation of provisions of section 40A(3), as these payments have been made on account of business expediency where insistence of cash by the agents and truck drivers has been established by the appellant.
AO was not justified in denying the exemption under section 11 on the ground of excessive payment of salary and professional fees to Doctors as the services rendered by doctors who had passed out with the same degree in Cardiology (DM) could not be compared with experience doctor working in the field for the last ten years.
Rajesh Ladhani Vs DCIT (ITAT Agra) It is evident from the CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12.3.2008 that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory that the assessments of search cases should be made with the prior approval of superior authority, so that the superior authority apply their mind on the […]
Since assessee had explained that the two partners had cash deposited out of the cash receipts against advanced sale of land in individual however, assessee could not furnish any details evidence of holding of land, agreement with the purchasers and date/mode of source of receipts either before AO or before CIT(A), therefore, AO was correct in holding these credits as unexplained in the hands of assessee.
When the books of accounts was rejected, the income of assessee was to be estimated on some reasonable basis for which comparable case and history of assessee could be taken as a guide. Thus, the N.P rate @ 8% applied by the authorities below was without any basis and material on records, the same was rejected and was considered fair to apply an average rate of earlier two years which was 3.50%.
Since the cash deposit made by assessee was from the business activities of glass bangle trading business, therefore, no addition under section 69 over and above the returned income would be warranted.
otice under section 148 issued on the basis of insufficient compliance to Letters dated 20.05.2011 and dated 02.02.2016 were wholly unauthorized in law as the reasons recorded must indicate that AO had applied his mind to the fact that income was chargeable to tax under the Act and it had exceeded maximum amount not chargeable to income Tax. Hence, reassessment was not valid as there were no reasons recorded by AO in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction in this case.
Proceedings under section 148 could not be initiated for verification of the sources of investment and therefore, the reasons recorded by AO were no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction for issuing notice under section 148.
