Sub-section (10) of Section 80IA of the Act, cannot be invoked in the facts of the present case to restrict its deduction under Section 80IB of the Act on the basis of the profits of the Appellant’s wife unit at Valsad.
Provisions of section 147/148 even otherwise are for the benefit of the Revenue and not for the benefit of the assessee. If there was any mistake on the part of the assessee in filing his return of income, which was duly accepted by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1), the filing of appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not the proper remedy to correct the same.
Notice issued under section 147 of the Act in respect of an entity which ceases to exist by virtue of amalgamation order under section 394 of Companies Act, would be illegal and unsustainable.
Simply because the Assessee could not produce the dealers, the entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer could have made further investigations to ascertain the genuineness of the transactions.
AO placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Jorhat Group Ltd vs Agricultural ITO reported in 226 ITR 622 (Gau) wherein it was held that the cess on green leaf is deductible from the agricultural income only and not from the composite income.
Failure of the assessee to give details of the sundry creditors may be a ground for raising suspicion, but suspicion alone is not enough for invoking the powers of best judgment
As per the amended section 36(1)(vii) with effect from 01.04.1989, the claim of bad debt is to be allowed once it is written off in the books of account and it is not required for the assessee to prove that the debt written off as bad has actually become irrecoverable.
Revenue states that the impugned order itself holds that share premium of Rs.490/ per share defies all commercial prudence. Therefore it has to be considered to be cash credit.
The question raised in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition on account of bogus purchases allegedly made by the assessee from M/s. Thakkar Agro Industrial Chem Supplies P. Ltd. According to the revenue, the Director of M/s. Thakkar Agro Industrial Chem Supplies P. Ltd.
Though the assessee is the sole owner of the property, he has included his wife and son as co-owners in the sale deed only to avoid succession problems in future and that they were also included as co-obligants in the loan agreement on insistence by the SBI to avoid legal litigation in future.
