Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s. 143(3), dated 1.12.2009 were that the assessee is a trust and during the year disclosed a capital gain of Rs.87,29,080/-. It was informed that the assessee had invested a sum of Rs. 1,12,00,000/- in Rural
It is an established way of computation of income where ever there is recycling of cash in a financial business to work out the peak credit. Particularly in a situation, when no regular or proper books of account are maintained by the assessee then a cash flow statement is generally prepared.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee claimed credit for TDS of Rs.1,73,52,062/- for the AY 2006-07 and Rs.2,25,09,037/- in AY 2007- 08 which was not allowed by the AO on the ground that the income in respect of the said TDS was not shown by the assessee in view of the provisions
Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)- In the instant case, the assessee claimed deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act for all the years which were disallowed by the AO on the ground that as per provisions of section 80IA(5) of the Act the computation of deduction has to be done by setting off of brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business against their respective eligible incomes.
It was held that loan taken from the relatives cannot be compared with bank loan because loan from the relatives are without security, while loan from the bank is secured. Tribunal has held in the case of Omkarmal Gaurishanker –Vs- ITO reported in 92 TTJ (Ahd.) 223 that interest paid to relatives @24% is reasonable.
Payments were made to truck drivers, who insisted for payment in cash was not exceptional case, because the assessee has not made payments to individual truck owners but to various brokers through whom the trucks were engaged, and therefore, the case of the assessee was not covered by the exceptions mentioned in Rule 6DD.
CIT(A) found force in the submission of the assessee that the interest at the rate of 12% was also taken as reasonable in the Income Tax Act under the provisions of section 40A(b)(iv) for the purpose of calculating interest to the partners. The CIT(A) also followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s.Raj Steel Industries and Vipul Y. Mehta Vs. ACIT (supra) where the rate of interest at 18% to 24% was considered to be reasonable.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. We find that during the year under consideration, the assessee claimed travelling expenses amounting to Rs.4,29,01 1/-. The AO disallowed 50% of the claim because the expenses included the expenses of assessee’ s wife also.
Merely because, there was no separate lease agreement with various parties, is not decisive of the issue. The vehicles were given to various parties on per trip basis, and therefore, separate agreement for carting income for each trip with various parties is not practicable to be executed and produced before the Revenue authorities.
Liabilities are still outstanding in the balance sheet as on the last date of relevant accounting period in the statement of account submitted with the department. There is no material on record to prove that the said liabilities have ceased to exist.
