The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the DVO has estimated the cost of investment at Rs.3,58,39,100/- against the cost of investment declared by the assessee at Rs.3,47,12,678/-. Therefore, the difference is about 3.24% and for this minor difference, no addition is called for. Since the difference is very nominal, no addition is called for in this regard.
Sponsorship charges incurred by the assessee company on study of daughter of the Director of the company abroad was not held to be of Personal Nature in view of the fact that study was sponsored by the assessee-company for its business exigency. Moreover she, being a Deputy General Manager of the assessee company, has entered into an agreement with the assessee company to serve the company for at-least five years post completion of studies abroad.
It was held that it is undisputed fact that the ‘Jorhar Unit’ of the assessee did not function at all in the present year and its assets although part of block of assets are identifiable and therefore as per provision of section 38(2) of the Act, depreciation is not allowable because assets of this unit were not used for business purposes in the present year.
Whether profit % can be applied on estimate basis if books of accounts are rejected, without reference to earlier year’s profit % where books were accounts were not rejected or whether the Assessing Officer is justified in Assessing the profit at a rate higher than earlier year in which profit was assessed by Assessing officer without specifying the reason for the same?
Protective assessment made by the Assessing Officer in the present case cannot be sustained because substantive addition has been made in the hands of IBN-18 Broadcast and therefore, if any addition is made in the present case, it will amount to double addition.
This is an appeal filed by assessee against the order of Ld. CIT (A) dated 18/11/2013 for the assessment year 2003-2004.The grounds of assessee was that CIT (A) did not afford the assessee sufficient time and opportunity to make necessary submission and to adduce relevant details and documents
For the purpose of limit prescribed in section 10(23C)(iiiad), Rs. One crore limit has to be considered for each institution separately and not for the assessee as a whole. This is very important to mention that as per section 10(23C)(iiiad) also, the term used is any university or other educational institution
These are the appeals filed by revenue against which assessee also filed cross-objection relevant to three AYs. In these cases ITAT examined various issues and held that capital gain on transfer of land held as stock-in-trade can be made only in the year in which stock-in-trade was sold and not in year in which agreement was made.
Mere cash deposit in the bank account of the creditor cannot be said that the creditor has no creditworthiness. Then by disagreeing by the other decisions the Hon’ble Tribunal held that in the present case, not even a notice was issued by the Assessing Officer to the creditors to examine and verify the case of the assessee regarding creditworthiness and identity of the creditors.
Respective court was of the view that section 68 has no application because the same had already been taken in income of the assessee so it no where remains undisclosed. Moreover the assessee has duly discharged its onus to prove the credit worthiness of the donor by giving the list of the same
