Whether the CIT(A) is correct in restricting the addition u/s 69C for bogus purchases to 12.5% against the total purchase disallowance made by AO?
ACIT Vs A One Enclave (ITAT Indore) At any stage revenue has not disputed the fact that the alleged amount surrendered during the survey was unaccounted business income of the assessee and not from any other sources. Section 11 5BBE of the Act was inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013 which restricts the claim […]
The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by AO under section 68 in respect of the deposit of business of wife in their joint bank account is justified in law?
Shri Babulal Vani Vs ACIT (ITAT Indore) The issue under consideration is if the assessee is in a position to reconcile the discrepancy raised under survey with positive material,then, the A.O. should give relief to the assessee or not? In the present case, the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of grain, cotton, […]
M.P. Warehousing & Logistics Corporation Vs ACIT (ITAT Indore) From perusal of the above details which stands un-rebutted, we find that the assessee had duly deducted the tax at source on the rent paid to the co-owners where the amount of rent exceeded the limit of Rs.1,80,000/- and in two cases where the amount was […]
When it was presumed that investment in hundi was bogus in such a situation there was no money available for the investment made by the assessee as such amount surrendered was not available, therefore, this proved that donation was made out of business receipts, which was an allowable expenditure.
Where there were two funds one which was already taxed and other had not and there were remittances during the accounting year for a certain sum, the source of which was not indicated then the presumption was that the remittances should have been from the fund which had already suffered tax. Thus, assessee was entitled to the telescoping benefit of the income surrendered during the year to the cash deposited in the bank account as the surrendered income which was invested in hundis were received back in cash and were duly accounted in the books of accounts.
Penalty under section 271AAB levied on the basis of defective notice could not be sustained as there was no mention about various conditions provided u/s 271 AAB as it was incumbent upon AO to mention in notice issued under section 274 read with section 271AAB as to under which clause of section 271AAB penalty was leviable and that too, at which rate.
Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (ITAT Indore) The basis of exercising of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act as per Ld. Pr. CIT is that transfer pricing related issues were not examined by the A.O. since the transaction carried out by the assessee are covered under specific domestic transactions. The contention […]
Penalty U/s. 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is leviable for failure to get accounts audited where the turnover / gross receipts exceeds the prescribed limit. Many times it happens that the turnover as per the regular books of accounts remains under the prescribed limit and as such the assessee do not gets the accounts audited U/s. 44AB.
