The Assessee was a significant shareholder in a company – The company sold building to shareholder on credit – Department treated it as ‘loan’ or ‘advance’ for invoking Section 2(22)(e). CIT(A) upheld the addition on the ground that since the unpaid purchase price has not been paid
In the instant case, the Assessing Officer observed that the addition of Rs 13,80,000/- was made u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act which does not form part of any specific head of income and is also not business income, therefore brought forward unabsorbed depreciation cannot be allowed set off against the same.
The aforesaid discursive of ours also makes it obvious that the conclusion of the Division Bench in Suresh N. Gupta treating the proviso as clarificatory and giving it retrospective effect is not a correct conclusion.
Reassessment proceedings are bad in law in as much as the AO sought to reopen the assessment beyond a period of four years and not followed the procedures laid down in section 151(2) of the Act for issuing notice under section 148 of the Act.
Assessing Officer has observed that the contentions of the Assessee are considered, but found not acceptable. From the contentions, what has been deduced is that the particulars of income filed by the Assessee were not correct or to put it in the language of the Act
Assessee-Company,engaged in the business of life insurance,filed its return of income on 29/10/2005 declaring total income at Rs.3 1.19 lakhs. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 30/03/2007.Later on a notice u/s 147 of the Act was issued by the AO.From the assessment records
At the time of hearing before us, it is submitted by the learned DR that the Assessing Officer had received definite information from the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi with regard to accommodation entries being provided by various entry operators.
Hon’ble Delhi ITAT has in the case of DCIT v/s Heminder Kumari in ITA No. 4210-4213/Del/2013 has held that the information received by the Assessing officer from his investigation Wing, at best, be regarded as a prima-facie material, but could not be construed as conclusive for use against the assessee to fasten any tax liability, because the same was required to be corroborated by credible and independent evidence.
Yesterday i.e. on 25.8.2014, due to non-functioning of the ACs installed in Court No.24, atmosphere of the Court was so humid and warm that learned Advocates including Senior Advocates, namely, Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, Mohd. Arif Khan, Dr. L.P.Mishra, made complain in this context to the Court.
M/s Pransukhlal Bros. v. ITO (Bombay High Court) , ITA WP Lodging no. 2124 of 2014 dt. 20/8/2014 In this case, we find that the order disposing of the objections refers to and relies upon investigation carried out by Sales Tax department, the information put up by Sales Tax department on it’s website and the affidavit cum- declaration filed by the defaulting parties with the Sales Tax authorities.
