Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs M/s Mahesh Munjal HUF held that if the assesse had paid advance tax in his individual capacity after considering his estimated share in his firm’s income without any anticipation that the firm’s income on which he was paying advance tax was false then interest u/s 215 could not be levied.
In another case of recovery of disputed dues by the Commercial Taxes department, by attaching the bank account of the assessee, during pendency of revision petition, the Hon ‘ble Madras High Court has directed the revision authority to dispose of the revision petition along with stay application within four weeks and kept the recovery in abeyance.
In AY 1994-15, the assessee (Sarita Aggarwal) had shown credit of Rs.2,60,000/- in the capital account under the narration Gift. The Assessing Officer disbelieved the claim and made an addition of the aforesaid amount to the income as declared, holding that the assessee was unable to establish genuineness of the gift.
Whether assessee has defaulted in payment in payment of additional amount of income-tax payable on the income disclosed in the original application and provision of section 245D (2C) can be invoked in such circumstances.
The predominant activities of the centre was not to earn income but to provide facilities for disseminating or exchanging knowledge as per the object of the society The dominant object of the assessee is definitely for the well being of public at large by organizing various seminars for
Clearing difference has been determined on the basis of statement of purchase and sales of shares of security made on assessee’s behalf by the broker. CIT(A) decided this issue after examining the ledger accounts maintained by the assessee and contract notes issued by the broker.
Assessee is not liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act since the same was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. The addition was based on the basis of loan creditors found from the balance sheet already filed prior to the search along with the original return of income.
Sponsorship charges incurred by the assessee company on study of daughter of the Director of the company abroad was not held to be of Personal Nature in view of the fact that study was sponsored by the assessee-company for its business exigency. Moreover she, being a Deputy General Manager of the assessee company, has entered into an agreement with the assessee company to serve the company for at-least five years post completion of studies abroad.
It was held that it is undisputed fact that the ‘Jorhar Unit’ of the assessee did not function at all in the present year and its assets although part of block of assets are identifiable and therefore as per provision of section 38(2) of the Act, depreciation is not allowable because assets of this unit were not used for business purposes in the present year.
Whether CIT (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on fixed assets without appreciating the fact that the capital expenditure incurred on acquiring the assets has already been claimed as application of income u/s. 11 of the I. T. Act 1961 in the current / past years.
