AO further held that to write off a debt it necessary that the debt becomes bad and irrecoverable after making effort for recovery. In the case of the assessee, from the ledger copies furnished by it, it was found that amounts form the debtor were received regularly.
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) cannot be made if recipient has offered payment made by assessee as income in their hands. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify above facts and if it is found that payee has already offered above amount as income in their return of income, disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) made by Assessing Officer would not survive.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition solely on the basis of investigation wing report unsustainable as onus was discharged by the assessee as PAN card and bank statements were duly submitted
Integra Engineering India Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is pertinent to note that though the assessee has stated that the intention of the assessee to give advances to its subsidiary for making capital and subsidy but the intention was to control the operation of the GTL and to oversee that the manufacturing cost of […]
JCIT Vs Shree Ganesh Construction (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is observed that even though the original receipt for payment of donation of Rs.50,000/- made to Chief Minister Kanya Kelvani Nidhi was not produced by the assessee as the same was lost or misplaced, sufficient evidence was produced by the assessee to support and substantiate its claim […]
Manibhadra Securities Services P.Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) he assessee in the present case is a private limited company and engaged in the business of trading of Shares and Securities. The assessee in the year under consideration has received the Loan to the tune of Rs. 4,08,01,000/-from M/s Ken Securities Limited. The assessee has repay […]
ITAT Ahmedabad held that loans to staff members is not business expenses and therefore interest earned on such loans cannot be treated as business income.
Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer has noticed that assessee has accounted interest expenses twice of Rs. 11.90 crores, therefore, the same was disallowed and also levied penalty of Rs. 1,46,48,271/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act on the combined amount of disallowance u/s. 14A and […]
In this case AO has not applied his own mind before issuing notice and to arrive at conclusion that assessee has escaped an income and made addition on the basis of report submitted by Investigation Wing. So, Learned AO issued notice purely on borrowed satisfaction. In our considered opinion, in such case addition cannot be made.
Books were never rejected by Assessing Officer and thus business loss cannot be disallowed without taking cognizance of all relevant aspect of matter
