In the case of DCIT Vs. M/s Sunrise Stock Services P.Ltd. Chandigarh bench of ITAT reversed the order of CIT (A) who deleted the penalty made on estimation basis. It was allegation of AO that assessee voluntarily surrendered the addition and statement of the director was recorded.
The ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Late Sh.Jagat Singh vs. ITO held that the interest paid by assessee on borrowings not allowable as the same were used to finance the sister concern when the crux of transaction results that no direct or indirect benefit accrues to assessee on such loans advanced.
In the cited case, ITAT directed AO inter-alia to include installments received on sale of various houses and flats under hire purchase agreement and at the same time allow corresponding expenditure which has been expended by the assesses in cash (including through cheque).
In the case of Shri Barjinder Singh Bhatti vs. ITO ITAT has held that in absence of not having any evidence or material before him to contradict the report of the Registered Valuer, AO cannot reject valuation report of Registered Valuer.
ITAT Chandigarh held in the case M/s Himlayan Expressway Limited vs. ITO that it is clear that the borrowed funds were not required by the assessee for business purposes. Therefore, the same funds were surplus funds in nature for that period which was utilized for making term deposits on which the assessee earned the interest.
The test to decide, as to whether the income is revenue in nature or capital receipt, is that if the funds borrowed are just surplus and by virtue of that circumstances they are invested in fixed deposits the income earned in the form of interest will be taxable under the head ‘Income from other sources’ [as per ratios of SC decision in 227 ITR 172].
It is well settled that the parameters of judging the justification for addition made in the assessment case of the assessee is different from the penalty imposed on account of concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income and that certain disallowance/addition could legally be made in the assessment
Tribunal held that in order to impart justice to the employees/assesses the delay deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Regarding the issue of Section 10(10)(C), the Hon’ble Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee holding that the authorities below were not justified in disallowing the amount of Rs.5 lacs
Assessing Officer has wrongly stated that Shri Prithvi Singh, father of the assessee has stated in his statement that he had no agricultural land in his name. Since, as per the Statement recorded by AO it is been observed that that Shri Prithvi Singh (father of the assessee) has stated that he has
D.R for the revenue argues that no appeal lies against Appeal Effect Order passed by Assessing officer. The appellant may apply to the Assessing Officer for rectification U/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but no appeal be filed against appeal effect order passed by AO.
