The assessee contended that the note was antedated and is accordingly not valid. He tried to substantiate his argument by demonstrating the following: If the satisfaction note was recorded on 29th Aug., 2002
The appellant deals in the manufacture and sale of cement. According to the appellant, in the present case, sale of cement was made at the destination of the buyer and hence the appellant would be entitled to CENVAT credit on input service on transportation of the cement sold by the appellant.
CIT (A) appeal as well as ITAT examined the document relied upon the revenue for making addition. It was found that the document was not addressed to anyone and without any signature and date. In such situation it can be said that it belong to assessee.
In the language of Section 2 (22) (e) the term beneficial owner of shares includes both registered as well as beneficial share holder. So provisions of this section could be applied where assessee can be treated as both mentioned above.
The facts in that case were that the assessee had booked a flat, and was recipient of a provisional allotment letter. The Court held importantly that even booking rights or rights to purchase the apartment or to obtain its letter was also capital asset
Entries found in third party books are not binding on the assessee solely on the basis of information received from the investigation unless the statement of the third party was supported by any documentary evidence.
From the bare reading of provision of section 2 (22) (e) it can be easily understood that section can be invoked only if assessee to whom any payment was made by way of loan or advance must be beneficial owner of the shares.
There are various case laws which conclude the facts that once the assesse discharged its primary onus by placing material and document on record before AO then it is assumed that the unexplained amount reflected in books of assessee stands explained.
Assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of cycle chains, wheel and axles. Assessee its return of income for AY 1997-98 was filed disclosing loss of Rs. 27,09,520/- and income of Rs. 1,08,544/- under the provisions of Section 115J.
The contention of the assessee was that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.4,00,000/-, therefore, the department ought not to have filed this appeal in view of the circular issued by the CBDT and the provisions contained in Section 268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
