The Tribunal while upholding the levy of penalty had concluded that the assessee had failed to substantiate that the gift received was genuine. The plea of the assessee that the gift was received due to his financial difficulty was also negated on appreciation of material on record.
The element of factual possession and agreement are contemplated as transfer within the meaning of the aforesaid section. When the transfer is complete, automatically, consideration mentioned in the agreement for sale has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessment of income
Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs. M/s. Lakhani Marketing Inc, ITA No.970 of 2008 (O&M) , Dated- 02.04.2014 made reference to two earlier decisions of the same Court in CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Limited, 323 ITR 518 and CIT Vs. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd 319 ITR 204 to hold that Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income was earned.
From the reading of Section 14A the Act, it is clear that before making any disallowance the following conditions are to exist:‑ a) That there must be income taxable under the Act, and b) That this income must not form part of the total income under the Act, and
Recently P&H High Court has held in the case of Mrs. Madhu Kaul Vs. CIT that identification of the flat or physical delivery of possession is irrelevant as right to hold properly stands crystalised upon allotment. The allotment of a particular flat and delivery of its possession would relate back to the allotment.
An argument raised by counsel for the revenue that the matter be remitted to enable the Assessing Officer to verify receipts recorded in account books for the financial year 2005-06, cannot be accepted as the matter has been considered in great detail. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has only after appraising the account books and referring to each receipt and TDS certificate, set out facts in a tabulated form and only after satisfying himself as to the bonafides of the assessee’s plea held that there was no fault on the part of the assessee.
Rs.11,19,765/- claimed Ly the appellant as commodities income is not relatable to the business of the appellant and as held by the Assessing Officer, duly affirmed by the Income TAX Appellate Tribunal and is a sham transaction, recorded with the sole object of evading tax by claiming this amount as income from other sources.
The assessee filed a return cf income claiming deductions under section 18(1)(b) of the Act. The deductions were disallowed. The Assessing officer, also directed initiation cf penalty proceedings, under Sections 271(1)(c) cf the Act.
Company, whose Audit Report is stated to have been prepared by respondent No.1 contrary to the prescribed norms, has not made any complaint against respondent No.1. One of the Directors of the Company, namely, Vipan Gupta, appeared before the Disciplinary Committee as a witness but he did not state a word about the aforesaid Audit Report.
Briefly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved, as narrated in the appeal, may be noticed. The respondent-assessee is a company engaged in manufacture of hosiery goods at Ludhiana.
