However, where the fundamental transaction is shown to be a sham transaction, the same cannot necessarily be accepted as genuine merely because a broker’s confirmation and invoices have been produced. Given the facts of this case, the decisions referred to by CIT(A)
Mistake apparent on the record u/s 154 must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions.
The petitioner by letter dated 17th November, 2011 had disclosed a foreign bank account which existed with the HSBC Private Bank, Geneva, Switzerland to the Director of Income Tax (Investigation-II). The peak amount lying in the said account during the year ending 31st March, 2007 was around US$ 1.3 million.
It is an admitted fact, in the present case that the Department has failed to supply the assessee the copy of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company, the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
The condition precedent for exercising the revisional power under section 263 of the Act is that the order under revision should not only be erroneous, but such erroneous order should result in prejudice to the interests of the Revenue.
On this undisclosed income, A.O. vide penalty order, levied penalty of Rs.2.5 crore u/s 271AAA mainly for the reason of non disclosure of the particulars of income in the statement filed u/s 132(4) by the assessee.
Document found during search was a third party document which was neither in the handwriting of the assessee nor bears her signature. Its inference has to be taken as stated by the person who possessed the document.
Whether the assessee company charged a higher premium or not, should not have been the subject matter of the enquiry in the first instance Instead, the issue was whether the amount invested by the share applicants were from legitimate sources.
ITAT held that CIT(A) had made detailed observations on the remand report of the AO who also in his report had not questioned any of the submissions made by assessee and in fact also had not made any adverse comments on the same.
Assessee had reduced its operating expenses to calculate ratio of operating profit/Total cost which was the base to calculate the value of export of goods in transfer pricing on the basis that it was its first year of operation
