AO was justified in making addition under section 68 on account of unexplained cash deposits found in bank account in case having regard to the human probabilities and normal course of human conduct, explanation offered by assessee was not wholesome, credible and verifiable.
According to us, once an insolvency professional is appointed to manage the company, the erstwhile directors who are no longer in management, obviously cannot maintain an appeal on behalf of the company.
The appellant sought to know: a) how many persons exchanged old notes for new notes at Pinto Park branch and also in 3 Wing Branch of Post Office in Air Force area, during the period 08.11.2016 to 25.11.2016 after demonetization; b) total amount of new currency issued for the period 08.11.2016 to 01.12.2016 from both the post offices; c) how many individuals exchanged the currency notes by producing their respective ID cards for the period 08.11.2016 to 01.12.2016 and sought addresses of all such individuals.
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.
Where assessee purchased Ground Floor of the house property and had also purchased first floor of the said house property and deduction for both the ground floor and the first floor under section 54F by treating both the floors as one single residential unit thus he was entitled to became two different floors of one house property could not be treated as two different residential houses.
Reference made to DVO under section 55A on the ground that value declared by assessee, as per Government registered valuer’s report was more than FMV, was not justified as AO could make reference to DVO only when he was of the opinion that value claimed in the registered valuer’s report was less than the fair market value.
Synthite Industrial Ltd. Vs CIT (Kerala High Court) Admittedly, the assessee purchased the land which was a rubber estate. The land was purchased to utilize it for the non-agricultural purpose of expansion of its factory. The rubber trees in the land were slaughter tapped which is a process that immediately precedes the cutting and removal […]
If second borrowing has really been used to repay the original loan and this fact is proved to the satisfaction of AO, interest paid on the second loan would also be allowed as deduction under section 24.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad held that exemption under section 54(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be denied to the assesse for the mere reason that the assesse has invested the capital gain in a normal term deposit account instead of Capital Gain Scheme account.
