ITAT Mumbai has in the case of Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil Vs. DCIT held that Purchases can not be termed as bogus by the AO merely because the supplier was listed as a hawala dealer by the Vat authorities.
We find from the audit report that the expenses in respect of exempt income was shown at Rs. Nil,that the assessee had debited direct expenses on account of dematerialisation and STT in the capital account and in the profit and loss account,that AO had presumed that the assessee had must
Assessee has challenged the addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) by way of TP adjustment on account of interest chargeable on the amount of share application money paid to its AE and lying unutilized for a period beyond 60 days treating the same as loan.
According to decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case where addition is made on account of application of section 50C and Revenue failed to produce any evidence to the effect that assessee has actually received more amount than that shown by it on the sale of property then penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied.
During the assessment year, the assessee has sold its factory premises from which it has been showing rental income. In the computation of total income the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 1 ,34,95,220/- on the investment in three flats.
Assessee (Salman Khan) in the present case is a leading film actor who derives income from profession of acting and advertisement assignments. The returns of income for both the years under consideration i.e assessment years 2003-04 & 2004-05 were filed by him on 28-11-2003
Accepting/ repaying loans/ advances via journal entries contravenes Section 269SS & 269T but Penalty cannot be levied under section 271D and Section 271E of the Income Tax Act,1961 if transactions are bona fide & genuine.
It was held that for the purpose of computation of capital gain on transfer of flat on which depreciation has been claimed and which has been held for more than 3 Years has to be treated as short term capital gain u/s 50 of the IT Act, but for the purpose
At the outset it may be mentioned that the Income Tax Officer, who is the appellant herein, as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax, who has authorised the AO to prefer an appeal, did not apply their mind in the correct perspective and in a very lacklustre and routine manner filed the appeal
Assessee argued that the clear transactions involving payment of share application money cannot be treated as international transactions of loans given by the assessee company to its AE merely because there was a delay in allotment of shares.
