On the issue of share premium money and unsecured loan, the Commissioner held that the order of the Assessing Officer suffers from several defects as the Assessing Officer has not raised any question while recording the statement with respect to the credentials of the applicant companies
From the clarification issued by the Hon’ble High Court, it is clear that until and unless the decision of Marilyn Shipping & Transport (supra) is reversed by the Court, it is binding on all the benches of the Tribunal.
The first issue relates to rejection of books of account and estimation of profit. The assessee is a private limited company and it has got its account audited under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The assessee has stated that it was following cash system of accounting.
As per the AO the assessee did not file any details in this regard. Referring to the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, he held that the assessee had defaulted in not deducting TDS as per the provisions of section 194C and 194J of the Act, that as per the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act the amount on which tax was deductible was not deducted or not paid within the time allowed
The assessee has shownexpenditure on advertisement through outdoor display which includes payment for advertisement on hoarding/board. The A.O. further noticed that the assessee has deducted TDS @ 2% u/s.194C on these payments.
The assessee entered into an agreement with an Export House M/s Rajnikant & Bros. As per the terms of the agreement M/s Rajnikan & Bros imported consignment of “Almonds in Shell” at Madras Port. This import was actually for one of the nominee of the assessee M/s Peanut Products
The facts, in brief, are that the assessee declared net wealth of Rs.2,75,28,460/- in his wealth tax return. The ld. Assessing Officer accepted the wealth declared by the assessee by passing an order u/s 16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
No addition can be sustained in this case, as, neither there is any investigation whatsoever made by the Assessing Officer nor was any evidence gathered by him. Merely because the market value as per the stamp valuation authorities and the sale price are at variance, no addition can be made to the business income.
The assessee is a FUND and a resident of Denmark. Along with its return of income, in India, the assessee had submitted ‘Tax Residency Certificate’ issued by the Danish Authorities in order to claim the benefit of Article 14 of India-Denmark DTAA.
First contention of the assessee is that the sale consideration cannot be taken more than the actual sale consideration shown in the transfer deed i.e. a sum of Rs.4 1.51 crores. The alternative contention is that if the sale consideration is taken as valuation done by the Stamp Valuation Authorities then there is a mistake
