As purchase of inventory is continuation of same business activity, the, proviso to section 36(1)(iii)(d) did not get attracted in case assessee having borrowed funds to purchase inventory, therefore, assessee was duly entitled to claim deduction under section 36(1)(iii).
माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय की डिवीज़न बेंच के न्यायाधीशगण जस्टिस श्री के. एस झवेरी व जस्टिस श्री विजय कुमार व्यास द्वारा Rajasthan Tax Consultants Association vs. Union of India & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15239/2017] के मामले में याचिकाकर्ता एसोसिएशन द्वारा दायर की गई रिट की सुनवाई की गई जिसमे जीएसटीएन पोर्टल में […]
Looking to the averments which are made in the petition and the reply which has been filed, it appears that the system is not working upto the level and the same is required to be corrected & updated to meet requirements.
In case of assessee dealing in foodgrains, investment in unrecorded stock of rice noticed during the course of survey was to be taxed as business income and not as income from other sources as investment in procurement of such stock of rice was clearly identifiable and related to the regular business stock of the assessee.
(i) Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in reversing the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and deleting the addition of Rs. 70,04,814 which was surrendered by the assessee by holding that such amount was included in the purchases and was reflected in the sales and closing stock
Assessee entered into a purchase agreement for purchase of a land and later transferred all the rights acquired under the power of attorney for certain consideration, AO applied section 50C and enhanced short-term capital gains of assessee which was not justified since section 50C was not applicable in this scenario as there was no stamp valuation.
Where CIT (A) had annulled original scrutiny assessment concluded under section 143(3) on the legal ground that notice issued under section 143(2) was time-barred, then revenue was precluded to adopt recourse of reassessment under section 147 to correct the mistake committed originally in not issuing notice under section 143(2) in time.
When income of the assessee was computed by applying gross profit rate, there was no need to look into the provisions of section 40A(3), as applying the gross profit rate takes care of expenditure otherwise by way of cross cheque also. Following the same the action of Tribunal could not be held as unjustified.
Returns of income filed in response to notice under section 153A are as a consequence of search action taken under section 132 on the assessees. These proceedings are analogous to proceedings under section 147, i.e., reassessment, to the extent that these proceedings are for the benefit of revenue and not that of the assessee. Therefore, assessee could not be permitted to convert such reassessment proceedings as his appeal or revision in disguise and seek relief in respect of depreciation earlier not claimed in original return of income.
(i) Whether the findings of the Tribunal are perverse in holding that for the purpose of limitation under section 158BE, the period is to be counted from the date on which the direction under section 142(2A) is served on the assessee and not from the date of issuance of direction by the assessing officer under section 142(2A) ?
