If it is to be held that the assessee has incurred certain expenditure and the source of expenditure remains unexplained, the amount can be added under section 69C of the Act. However, if on one hand the amount is added as unexplained expenditure, still it retains the character of the expenditure incurred on the object of trust.
ITO (TDS) Panchkula Vs. Bharat Electronics Ltd. (ITAT Chandigarh) it is apparent from the record that the assessee deducted TDS correctly and revised the PAN and filed revised statement in Form No. 26Q, hence there was sufficient compliance of the provisions of section 139A of the Act. Even otherwise the assessee did not derive any benefit whatsoever, by filing the wrong PANs and PAN was corrected after ascertaining the same from the respective deductees. In our view the assessee has proved that there was reasonable cause for alleged failure and hence no penalty is leviable
Without adjudicating on the issue whether the Advertisement, Marketing and Sales Promotion expenditure incurred by the taxpayer can be characterised as an international transaction as per Section 92B of the Act, the Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the TPO in working out ALP is not justified and directed the AO to delete the adjustment made by the TPO.
Rajinder Mohan Lal Vs. DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)- impugned gifts cheques were in the name of the assessee and not in the name of the assessee’s daughter, whose marriage was solemnized and the quantum of such gifts were credited by the assessee to his bank account. It is also a fact that the sum of money received by the assessee were not transferred to the bank account of his daughter, whose marriage was solemnized. In view of the above legal and factual discussions and clear findings of the lower authorities, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and, hence, the same are upheld. This ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Subash Chand Vs. ACIT (ITAT Chandigarh)- In the present case, the AO has found that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs. 27,90,000/- towards purchase of flat/plot and for meeting household expenses in the year under appeal. The assessee could not have paid the aforesaid amount without having the money with him. No material has been placed before us to establish that the assessee had actually been paid by the buyer any money over and above Rs. 8.00 lakhs or that the assessee has actually received from the buyer of the agricultural land over and above Rs. 8 lakhs.
ACIT Vs. Punjab State Coop & Marketing (ITAT Chandigarh)- The assessee has placed on record the details of investment along with the amount of investment in shares in five companies made by the assessee. On perusal of the said details reveal that majority of the investments were made prior to 1994 and on the said investments
CIT Vs Sanjay Chhabra ( Chandigarh High Court)- The sole point for consideration in this appeal is that once the Revenue had come to the conclusion that the assessee had made sales of apples amounting to Rs. 5,75,654/- to one Jagdish Chawla, whether it was the entire amount, or the 5% profit thereof, being commission on such sale, that was to be added to the income of the assessee.
The salient features of the impugned case have already been noted by us namely, that the assessee is a Co-operative Society, set up by the Government of Punjab registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has duly noted that its primary business is to grant loans to members in Urban and Rurah Co-operative Housing Societies of the State of Punjab for construction of houses and Housing Complexes. The assessee has been ea
The only issue arising in the appeal was whether while computing the income from capital gains, the fair market value of the property on the date of sale could be adopted as against the sale consideration received by the assessee. In the facts of the instant case, the assessee had sold the property for a total consideration of Rs. 15.25 lakhs. The said value of consideration was accepted by the registering authorities and was not disturbed. The provisions of section 50C were neither applicable nor applied by the Assessing Officer.
No penalty is imposable in respect of vexed legal issues which are debatable or on which two views/opinions are possible. For imposing penalty under s. 271(1)(c), the twin conditions of furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income has to be satisfied.
