In our view, merely because the suppliers have not appeared before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), one cannot conclude that the purchases were not made by the respondent-assessee.
On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and contended that theory of gift was having a fundamental flaw in so far as there was absolutely no explanation as to why the alleged donor has given gift to the assessee.
We also note that even in the case of comparables selected by the assessee details of which have been given in para 3 of the order earlier, there is wide fluctuation in the margins of the companies; the lowest margin i.e. 0.34% in case of Ask Me Info Hub Ltd. and the highest margin as 27.98% in case of Allsec Technologies Ltd. Obviously the cases selected by the assessee are not identical otherwise there would not have been so wide variation Excluding the highest margin and the loss case, the average margin of other comparables of the assessee comes to only 4.5% which is 1/6th of the highest margin.
It is also pointed out that the Tribunal is delaying the matters of the petitioner or passing unreasoned orders or by totalling ignoring him. It is also pointed out that respondent No.2 was transferred out of Amritsar on a representation submitted by the petitioner but after one year respondent No.2 has been again posted as a Judicial Member of Amritsar Tribunal. The petitioner claims that the Members are totally prejudice against the petitioner on account of his having made a complaint against respondent No.2 to the President.
The stand of the revenue that expenditure incurred by the society on giving presents to as own members would amount to expenditure on itself or application of its income to its members also could not be countenanced as the society was entirely a separate entity
As far as submissions of allowing the deduction in subsequent AY. is concerned we are of the opinion that the question is not arising out of the appeal decided by the FAA and appeal for the next AY is not before us. In these circumstances, we do not want to pass any order in this regard.
Facts :- learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee paid interest to the Banks amounting to Rs.13,64,522/- and has availed loans to the extent of Rs.60,22,364/- including secured loans of Rs.47,63,761/- from Punjab & Sind Bank and Rs.8,59,298/- from Andhra Bank.
Search operation was carried out in one M/s. G.B. & Company under section 132. Though the premises of the assessee were also searched during search operations, the same were in the capacity of an employee of the said company and not in individual capacity.
Assessing 0fficer can invoke Rule 8D only when he records satisfaction in regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee, having regard to the accounts of the assessee. The condition precedent for the Assessing 0fficer entering upon a determination of the amount of the expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income
It has been held that the right to receive retention money accrues only after the obligations under the contract are fulfilled. Therefore, it will not amount to income of the assessee in the year in which amount is retained.
