Addition made on the basis of a print out taken from the computer of a third party without there being no other corroborative evidence brought on record to prove the fact that the payment mentioned in the seized material was actually received by the assessee, not sustainable.
We find that during the year under consideration, the assessee company has already declared the dividend of ₹ 5.40 crores and hence, it cannot be doubted that the payment of dividend was made in the guise of commission to the directors.
Where assessee’s broker share transaction was bone fide in all respect, merely because share broker was tainted violating SEBI regulations, would not make assessee’s share transactions bogus.
The Amendment Under Section 254(2) In Respect Of Time Limit Of Six Months For Rectification Is Prospective And Applicable To The Orders Passed After 01.06.2016
The captioned two appeals by the assessee relating to Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07 involve a common issue, therefore, they have been clubbed and heard together and a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.
These Miscellaneous Applications are filed by the assessee seeking rectification of mistake apparent on the record in the order dated 06/09/2013 passed by the Tribunal while disposing of bunch of appeals filed by the department.
Out of these four appeals two appeals are filed by the assessee while the other two appeals are filed by the Revenue for against the orders of the CIT(A) – 4, Mumbai dated 13.02.2017 and 06.02.2017 for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively.
In the year 2011, a search conducted on the premises of the residence of the assessee resulted in recovery of certain documents on the basis of which, the department made some addition on account of undisclosed income arising out of appearance fee in ICC Awards function, unexplained expenditure etc.
Making purchases through the grey market gives the assessee savings on account of non-payment of tax and others at the expense of the exchequer. In such situation, in our considered opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the case, 12.5% disallowance out of the bogus purchases meets the end of justice. Accordingly, I hold that the disallowance should be restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Mumbai dated 29.01.2015 for the Assessment Year 2010-11.
