It was finally contended that the aforesaid compensation was determined and received on closure/ termination of its business activity resulting in to loss of source of income impairing its profit making structure or sterilization of profit making apparatus, therefore, the assessee company treated the same as Capital receipt not chargeable to tax and accordingly has shown the same under the head ‘Reserve and Surplus’.
Compensation received by assessee on closure of business activity was for sterilization of the profit making apparatus of assessee-company; therefore, the same was capital receipt.
Since AO made addition under section 153 on the basis of documents seized in case of third party but without mentioning of assesse’s name in any legal paper and non-establishment of relationship with searched party, therefore, the same was invalid.
Assuming that the brokers may have done some manipulation but the assessee cannot be held liable for the Act of the brokers when the entire transactions have been done through banking channels duly recorded in the Demant accounts with a Government depository and traded on the stock exchange.
Asstt Vs Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. (ITAT Raipur) There is no dispute that no incriminating material has been found at the time of search and therefore it is now settled proposition of law that no assessment u/s. 153A of the Act can be framed in the absence of any incriminating material found at the […]
ACIT Vs Balajee Structural (India) Pvt.Ltd. (ITAT Raipur) It is not in dispute that the appellant has maintained books of account regularly and these are duly audited u/s 44AB of the I.T. Act and the quantitative details were prepared and were duly audited. The variation in percentage of GP/NP or payments in cash, in the […]
Appellant has been held liable as assessee in default merely due to technical flaws. Demand has been raised merely due to fault of system and in view of the CBDT’s Instruction No.5/2013 dated 08.07.2013, the demand cannot be sustained.
In our considered view, without proving the nexus between the borrowed funds and its utilisation for non-business purposes, no dis allowance of interest expenditure can be made.
If during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed details of claim of exemption of the same u/s.54F of the Act, the Assessing Officer is duty bound to entertain those details and verify the same and if the assessee is found eligible otherwise as per the conditions u/s.54F of the Act, he is bound to allow deduction to the assessee.
As for Hon’ble Kerala High Court’s decision in the case of Thomas George Muthoot (supra), undoubtedly, outside the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Kerala High Court and outside the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Delhi High Court- which has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, there are conflicting decisions on the issue of restrospectivity of second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia).
