Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 664 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 of the Act Unexplained cash credit Held that:- CIT(A) rightly held that the assessee has shown an amount of Rs. 37,06,000/- in cash - there was cash payment of Rs. 15,57,000 - CIT(A) was convinced that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast upon it by virtue of Sec. 68 and confirmed the addition of Rs. 21,49,000/- in the name of Shri Raouff Ansari - the assessee has never discharged the initial onus cast upon it by Section 68 of the Act CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs. 2640 for want of verifiable details thus, there was no reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) - Decided against Assessee. Disallowance of prior paid expenses Held that:- The assessee could not prove before the CIT(A) that the liability have crystallized during the year under consideration thus, there was no reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) Decided against Assessee. Disallowance of 5% of expenses on adhoc basis Held that:- Considering the nature of expenses and the non co-operation by the assessee in not filing the details as the CIT(A) has already reduced the disallowances by 50% - thus, there is no no need for any interference in the order of the CIT(A) Decided against Assessee. Deletion of addition u/s 68 of the Act - Unexplained cash credit Held that:- CIT(A) rightly held that the confirmations were furnished by the party and also furnished its PAN to AO - the loan was returned in subsequent year and the sum of Rs. 2,93,138/- represents provision for interest on the opening balance plus the money introduced during the year - the assessee has successfully discharged the initial onus cast upon it by virtue of Sec. 68 of the Act this, there is no need for interference in the order of the CIT(A) Decided against Revenue. Addition u/s 68 of the Act Onus to prove - Amount received from MD of the company as cash credit Held that:- CIT(A) has rightly held that the assessee has shown the amount from Directors under the head unsecured loans from the Directors the provisions of Sec. 68 clearly apply on the facts of the case - the primary onus is on the assessee and this onus stands undischarged - the addition for the reasons that the assessee has not discharged the primary onus cast on it u/s 68 of the Act thus, there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) Decided against Assessee. Disallowance of prior paid expenses Held that:- CIT(A) was convinced that the liability for octroi charges did crystallized during the year and allowed the relief to the extent of Rs. 1,57,189 - In so far as advertisement expenditure is concerned, CIT(A) observed that the liability was crystallized in the earlier year therefore cannot be allowed as expenditure during the year under consideration the CIT(A) has given a clear finding regarding the crystallization of liability in respect of advertisement expenditure thus, there is no need for interference in the order of the CIT(A) Decided against Assessee. Deletion made u/s 41(1) of the Act Held that:- The AO has made the addition u/s 41(1) of the Act only because he found that the liabilities were outstanding for more than one year - CIT(A) has rightly observed that this cannot be any ground for making the addition u/s 41(1) of the Act thus, there is no reason for any interference in the order of the CIT(A) Decided against Revenue. Disallowance of professional /legal charges Held that:- CIT(A) rightly held that the assessee and its associated concerns are different entities carrying on business separately - CIT(A) was convinced that the expenses are not incidental to the business of the assessee as the assessee has failed to substantiate its claim of expenses, there is no reason for any interference in the order of the CIT(A) Decided against Assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act Held that:- As decided in assessees own case for the previous assessment year, the assessee has grossly failed to explain the genuineness of the transaction thus, the levy of penalty is justified and since a minimum penalty has been levied at the rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, no interference is called for Decided against Assessee.
|