We are in disagreement with the revenue’s argument that GMDAT should not be selected as a ‘tested party’ as the comparable as the comparable companies selected by the assessee doesn’t fall within the ambit of TPO’s jurisdiction and, thus, he can neither call for any additional information nor scrutinize their books of accounts.
It is settled principle of law apparent is real onus is on the person who alleges that apparent is not real. Once the assessee has submitted the evidence by way of bank account of JPC supporting his contention that the assessee has taken loan for the payment of labour payment incurred by it.
Issue -During the course of search certain valuables including jewellery was found and the assessee has filed detailed explanation regarding the source of acquisition of jewellery. The assessee has explained that out of the jewellery found, some part belongs to the wife of the assessee
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer observed that the addition of Rs 13,80,000/- was made u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act which does not form part of any specific head of income and is also not business income, therefore brought forward unabsorbed depreciation cannot be allowed set off against the same.
In the instant case, the assessee is a charitable trust registered u/s. 12AA of the Act. The assessee trust paid remuneration of Rs 4,80,000/- to Shri Anantbhai K. Shah who is a full time secretary and trustee of the assessee trust.
Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kumararani Meenakshi Achi (supra) has held that the differential treatment cannot be meted out to another co-owner while making the assessment of same property or while valuing the same property.
Once loss is determined, the same should be set off against the income determined under any other head of income including undisclosed income. Hon’ble ITAT Ahemdabad Bench in the case of M/s. K.R. Automobiles v/s ACIT in ITA No.1972/Ahd/2012 has held that business loss can be set off against the addition u/s.68 of the Act by observing as follows:-
Assessee cannot be treated as assessee in default for not collecting TCS from such buyers from whom the assessee received declaration as per provisions of section 206C(1A) of the Act.
The issue before us is whether the transfer of the shares of Nestle India Ltd and Hindustan Lever Ltd held by the members of Bilakhia family as investment by them to the assessee-company as per family arrangement dated 16-02-2001 claimed to have been transferred without
Whether for the purpose of Section 54EC of IT Act, 1961, the period of investment of six months should be reckoned after the date of transfer or from the end of the month in which transfer of capital asset took place?
