Charu Aggarwal Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) Held that cash sales made by the assessee which was deposited in the bank post demonetization is sufficient source of cash deposited. Addition of the same unsustainable. Facts- A notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee post search operation. Thereafter, the assessee filed its ROI declaring an income […]
Held that the assessee entered into forex derivative transaction with the ICICI Bank to hedge the foreign currency risk involved in the transaction. Thus, expenses claimed were revenue in nature as the derivative transaction entered into by the assesse was not in the nature of speculative transaction.
Held that addition u/s. 68 and 69A unsustainable as evidences relating to cash deposited submitted and not doubted by AO and also books of account of the assessee are also not rejected u/s 145(3).
Sunita Goyal Vs PCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) In the absence of any evidence or fact rebutting the claim of the assessee, the order passed after due enquiries as per record by the AO cannot be set aside on mere inferences and presumptions. The suspicions of the ld. PCIT cannot be the basis for setting aside a […]
Held that for invoking revisionary power u/s 263 it is necessary to point out the error in the order and that too such an error should be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue
Gurmeet Kaur Khurana Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee had invested an amount of Rs.6 lacs for immovable property with M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd. The investment was made vide cash payments. The transaction was flagged. It was noticed that no tax return was filed by the assessee. […]
Discrepancies in the silver jewellery cannot be said to be from an unexplained source as no such fact or allegation has either been made in the Survey. The discrepancy in the silver stock was in the regular course of the business of the assessee.
Explore the ITAT Chandigarh ruling in Classic Binding Industries vs. DCIT case. Victory for the assessee on 80-IC deduction for exchange rate fluctuation and substantial expansion.
Even if the assessee was unrepresented, CIT(A) should have adjudicated the issues before him based on the case record before him but unfortunately, CIT(A) chose not to do so and dismissed the assessee’s appeal without examining the case on merits. Therefore, the condonation of delay was allowable and substantial justice required that the issues should be re-examined by CIT(A).
Addition u/s 69 unsustainable as assessee books of account have not been rejected and also durin search no incriminating material was found which would point out towards the assessee introducing her unaccounted cash into the books of account.
