Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 69 - AT - Income TaxAddition on the consultancy charges paid to sister concern - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- As argued by the ld. Departmental Representative that no details are available as to why the present assessee has received the amount on behalf of the sister concern i.e. East Cost consultant from M/s. Commercial Buildwell Pvt. Limited. The facts brought on record do not suggest the reason for the same and services rendered by East Cost consultant to M/s. Commercial Buildwell Pvt. Limited. Being so, in our opinion, it requires re-examination of the issue. We are not in a position to express any opinion regarding the nature of service rendered by East Cost consultant and in the absence of the reason for receipt of the above amount by the assessee on behalf of the East Cost consultant, from M/s. Commercial Buildwell Pvt. Limited. Accordingly, we are not in a position to uphold the of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and accordingly this issue is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. - Decided in favour of revenue by way of remand. Addition being the sale of ancestral property reminded as unexplained - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- It was brought on record by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the assessee has received this amount from his brother Shri. P. Srinivasan as loan for which the assessee had paid interest thereon. Further, the name of the assessee's mother is typed instead of assessee's brother, is only a typographical error which is to be condoned. Since the assessee's brother Shri. P. Srinivasan has confirmed the loan given to the assessee and the transaction was routed through banking channel, the identity of the lender is proved as well as the genuineness of the transaction. Accordingly, the deletion of addition made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is justified. - Decided against revenue Addition on the cash deposit with Axis Bank being unexplained cash deposits - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- As narrated by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) the funds transactions are duly reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee and the assessee also explained the parties from whom the funds were received. Hence, these deposits cannot be claimed as unexplained deposits. In our opinion, the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is justified and the same is confirmed. - Decided against revenue
|