ITAT Ahmedabad held that interest income earned from business activity is classifiable as business income and accordingly, relevant expenses allowed as deduction. Hence, appeal of the assessee allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that interest received by co-operative society from SBI, which is a Nationalized Bank, is not allowable as per the section 80(P) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, AO directed to carry out proper adjudication and verification.
The assessee earned income from selling milk and filed her return for AY 2017-18 declaring income of Rs.1,78,110/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny with the reason of “large value cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to returned income”.
Before ITAT it was submitted that AO determined the total income/revised income as Rs.12,84,93,150/-. Thus the assessed income is lesser than the returned income of Rs.13.30 crores.
Assessee has not violated the provision of the Act u/s 271B as the assessee has Audited his accounts as per the provisions of section 44AB within the stipulated time but only filed the same belatedly.
Case was reopened after recording proper reason. Assessment was completed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 25.03.2022, wherein addition of Rs.1 Crore was made in respect of unexplained investment in the immovable property.
Assessee filed return for AY 2013-14 declaring Nil income. The case of the assessee was reopened based on information received from investigation unit that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries and bogus LTCG.
In the case abovementioned ITAT remanded the matter to CIT (A) after observing that delay of 32 days was explained satisfactorily. Assessee was salaried employee and not used to the proceedings of income-tax litigation.
During the pendency of assessment proceedings assessee died and notice u/s. 142(1) dated 12.03.2022 has been issued to legal heir/representative of the assessee as per provisions u/s. 159.
Assessee could not have been subjected to additions in case of search/survey operations merely on basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) unless and until some corroborative evidence was found in support of such admission.
