Brief Facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of foodgrains. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has shown unsecured creditors amounting to Rs 80,27,616 but, as certain payments made to these persons
In the case of ACIT v/s Praveen Kumar there was an addition made on account of unsecured loan and interest paid thereon. All the details were furnished before the A.O in form of account of the creditors along with acknowledgement of their income tax returns and bank statement .But summons issued to lenders were not responded .
Recovery provisions under section 201(1) can be invoked only when loss to revenue is established, and that can only be established when it is demonstrated that the recipient of income has not paid due taxes thereof and the recipient of the amounts had the liability to tax.
Time limits set out under section 153, for completing the assessments, reassessments and recomputations, are concerned, is that these time limits do not apply in the cases “where the assessment, reassessment or recomputation is made on the assessee or any person
If no additions made on grounds set for reasons for reassessment, than no addition can be made on other aspects The legal position is fairly well settled on the issue that in a reassessment proceeding, when no additions are made in respect of the income, purportedly escaping the assessment, set out in the reasons for re-opening the assessment, no other additions can be made either.
Merely because and institution has borrowed funds, one cannot conclude that the objects of such institution cannot be charitable. The assessee may borrow funds for fulfillment of its objects, therefore, we have stated in framing words, the mere facts of borrowing cannot be against the assessee at the stage of grant of registration.
Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Tribunal (Agra) in case of Rajeev Kumar Agarwal vs CIT (ITA No. 337/Agra/2013) pronounced on 29th May 2013 wherein the AO disallowed interest payments made without deducting TDS under Section 194A of the Act.
“As evident from a plain look at the ground of appeal, the actual grievance of the appellant is not on merits but on the legal issue regarding limitations on the powers of the CIT(A) on the ground that post 1st June 2001
In the case of Cardinal Drugs Pvt Ltd.Hon’ble ITAT has observed that there was no scope for the A.O. to have resorted to the provision of Section 154 of the Act for the purpose of enhancing the income of the assessee.by stating as under:- The A.O. on long drawn process of reasoning should not have passed the order under Section154 of the Act. The issue raised by the A.O. in proceeding under Section 154 of the Act is highly debatable which requires the issue to be reconsidered by the A.O.about applicability of the provision of Section 115JB of the Act which was notraised by the A.O. in assessment or appellate proceedings.
Agra ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Yogendra Kumar Singhal has held that Quality & lavishness of construction is not incriminating material. Reference cannot be made to the Valuation Officer in the absence of incriminating material/document found during the course of search
