In balance sheet of assessee credit balance of lenders had been shown at Rs. 49 lacs and Rs. 13 lacs and details of accounts along with confirmation, addresses and PAN of lenders were furnished before AO for verification. Even assessee had furnished copy of assessment orders passed in case of lender for the relevant year for verification. Apart from that, funds had been received by assessee through banking channel, and therefore, all the ingredients necessary for proving cash credit under section 68 stood satisfied by assessee. Therefore, AO was not justified in making addition under section 68.
Shyam Cotsyn India Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Understatement of stock or unrecorded sale If the assessee has overvalued its closing stock of the earlier assessment year which suggests that amount of profit was increased by that amount or the loss was decreased by the same amount of that assessment year. As such the effect […]
Sunland Alloys Vs C.C. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) The issue under consideration is whether the DGOV guidelines are over and above Customs Valuation Rules? In the present case, the appellant imported Aluminium Scrap under various Bill of Entries and the price declared in the Bill of Entry is as per the invoice of the foreign supplier. The […]
DCIT Vs Late Shri Pravinsinh N Zala (ITAT Rajkot) Whether the amendment brought under the provisions of section 153C of the Act, where the word ‘belong’ was replaced with the word ‘pertain’ is applicable for the year under consideration. It was only on 1st June, 2015 when the amended provisions came into force that the […]
Mafatlal Industries Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & ST (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Demand of Rs. 39,60,634/- was confirmed on the ground that same was wrongly availed on ISD invoices issued by the appellant’s Ahmedabad and Mumbai branch for services availed prior to the date of ISD registration was granted for the said unit. We find […]
Tribunal’s power and jurisdiction of hearing an appeal against an order of provisional release was coequal with the power exercised by the adjudicating authority. Tribunal had the power to direct provisional release of gold jewellery, seized as well as to fix the terms.
Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited & Anr. Vs. Srigdhaa Beverages (Supreme Court) 1. M/s. SB Beverages, owner of a piece of land, failed to repay a loan to Syndicate Bank (creditor). 2. To this measure, on 25.05.2017 the Bank (secured creditor) brought the property to auction under the SARFAESI Act. 3. The land […]
PCIT Vs Junjab National Bank (Delhi High Court) Merely because additions made by the Assessing Officer have been partially upheld by the CIT (A), would not confer the ground to initiate proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of imposition of penalty, unless it is found that there is concealment of material facts, or furnishing […]
The issue under consideration is whether A.O. and CIT is correct in making an addition u/s 69 for cash found during search in bank locker?
Mahle Filter Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs Add. CIT (ITAT Delhi) The issue under consideration is whether A.O. is correct in treating the ‘rental income’ as ‘income from other sources’? The assessee has disclosed rental receipts from its factory building and after deducting 30% as per provisions of section 24 of the Act, income from house […]
