Further, it is not the case of the assessing officer that the assessee has indulged in accounting of bogus purchases. When the assessee submitted that he could not have effected the sales without making corresponding purchases, the AO has taken the view that the assessee could have effected purchases in the grey market, which conclusion is, in fact, not supported by any material.
In this case AO has made the addition as some of the suppliers of the assessee were declared Hawala dealer by the Sales tax Department. This may be a good reason for making further investigation but the AO did not make any further investigation and merely completed the assessment on suspicion
AO was not justified in making the addition on the basis of statements given by the third parties before the Sales Tax Department, without conducting any other investigation. In the instant case also, the assessing officer has made the impugned addition on the basis of statements given by the parties before the Sales tax department.
Calcutta High Court held In the case of Late Sushil Modi vs.CIT that the contention of the assessee that he need not prove his case and the assessing officer is bound to find corroboration by making independent enquiry is neither based on law nor is supported by reason.
While discussing the Revisional powers of CIT(A) u/s 263 it was held that the Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, i) the order is erroneous; and ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
n was judicially held in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. CIT (2000) 6 SCC 645 that if a business liability has arisen in the accounting year, the deduction should be allowed even if such a liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date.
CIT Vs. Shri Varanasi Khanta Rao (Andhra Pradesh High Court) When once the Commissioner has got power to point out the errors which had the effect on the revenue, the Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate authority on the order of the Commissioner passed under Section 263 of the Act.
The Petitioner Company is conducting a business of providing preprinted Sodexo Meal Vouchers (For short “the said Vouchers”). The case made out in the Petitions is that the Petitioner Company enters into a contract with its customers for issuing the said vouchers.
Following the judgment in the case of Gajapathi Naidu (supra) the question to be asked is when did the expenditure claimed by way of deduction arise? There would have been no occasion to claim the deduction if the work-in-progress had completed its course.
The Petitioner, M/s Idea Cellular Ltd., paid the VAT on the transactions of activation of SIM cards, since earlier in case of State of UP v. Union of India, Supreme Court held the activity of activation of SIM cards as exigible to VAT.
