It is correct that the terms of partnership provided payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent on capital of partners as well as remuneration to the working partners. The assesses, however, did not make payment thereof to the partners nor made any provision of liability in the books of account
There is hardly any dispute about the settled law that quantum and penalty proceedings are altogether different and each and every disallowance/addition made in the course of former proceedings does not ipso facto attract the latter penal action as per hon’ble apex decision in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC).
AO bound to demonstrate that the assessee has failed to disclose material facts fully and truly which has resulted in escapement of income. If he fails to demonstrate this aspect, then, in the case where scrutiny assessment has been made and four years have expired, he cannot take action under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
This appeal of Revenue for Asst. Year 2009-10 is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad, dated 2nd July, 2012 vide appeal No.CIT(A)-XV/406/ITO-9(1 )/1 1-12 arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the Act), framed on 23/12/2011 by ITO, 9(1), Ahmedabad. Following grounds have been raised by the Revenue
First ground of the assessee for claiming the deduction under section 80IB was that it had started production in Asstt.Year 2004-05. Asstt.Year 2006-07 is the third year. Deduction under section 80IB was granted in Asstt.Year 2005-06 in a scrutiny assessment.
CBDT itself has accepted the proposition that the share income from the firm received by the partners is exempt u/s 10(2A) of the Act and under no circumstances can be taxed in the hands of the partners.
It was held that impounded loose sheet can at the most be termed as dumb document which did not contain full details about the dates, and its contents were not corroborated by any material and could not relied upon and made the basis of addition.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied on the addition made by ld. Assessing Officer but when the basis i.e. quantum addition has itself been deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench,
Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) has sought to establish a direct nexus between assessees professional income from playing cricket along with his expenditure in question claimed u/s.37 of the Act.
In Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I) Ltd. vs. ACIT [ITA Nos. 3045/Ahd/2013 & 104/Ahd/2014, decided on 17.01.2017], briefly, the assessee being a company manufacturing/trading in air conditioners filed return of income on 20.12.2006 stating total income of Rs.15,62,01,340/-. It however returned nil income after adjusting carry forward losses.
