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.
The assessee has treated the interest paid on borrowed capital for the establishment of new unit at baddi as revenue expenditure. Where as department has the view that capital borrowed for the purpose of establishing new plant should be capitalised instead of revenue.
ITAT is the final fact finding body and high court cannot decide a question related to fact of the case. However can decide that whether ITAT has rightly decide a matter or not. If high court found that matter was not decided on facts then it can send back matter to ITAT for fresh examination but
It is also pointed out that the Tribunal is delaying the matters of the petitioner or passing unreasoned orders or by totalling ignoring him. It is also pointed out that respondent No.2 was transferred out of Amritsar on a representation submitted by the petitioner but after one year respondent No.2 has been again posted as a Judicial Member of Amritsar Tribunal. The petitioner claims that the Members are totally prejudice against the petitioner on account of his having made a complaint against respondent No.2 to the President.
Facts :- learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee paid interest to the Banks amounting to Rs.13,64,522/- and has availed loans to the extent of Rs.60,22,364/- including secured loans of Rs.47,63,761/- from Punjab & Sind Bank and Rs.8,59,298/- from Andhra Bank.
It has been held that the right to receive retention money accrues only after the obligations under the contract are fulfilled. Therefore, it will not amount to income of the assessee in the year in which amount is retained.
The Tribunal found that a tax payer can manage his affairs to reduce tax liability within the frame work of law and that the sale of goods at a lesser price to the sister concerns than to the non-sister concerns, does not violate any provision of law.
