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 646 - AT - Income TaxReopening of assessment - Held that:- The reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. The AO noticing that interest on loan was claimed as deduction against the insurance commission can definitely form a belief regarding escapement on income. The return filed by the assessee was not the subject matter on regular assessment u/s 143(3) and only an intimation u/s 141 has been issued. There is no merit in the ground raised by the assessee - Decided against assessee Brokerage paid on Commission disallowed - Held that:- In the appellate proceedings, the assessee had claimed that being a lady she cannot freely move around to procure insurance agency business and, therefore, she had engaged certain people on a commission basis. This claim of the assessee was not substantiated. The assessee did not give any details of the expenses and was not able to prove the expenses out of the LIC commission received. The CIT(A) therefore confirmed the addition made by the AO. Even before us, the Assessee could not substantiate the claim made in this regard by filing the required evidence. In these circumstances, the addition is sustained. - Decided against assessee Consultancy charges disallowed - Held that:- Though the assessee has made submission regarding disallowance of consultancy charges in the written submission filed before CIT(A), the assessee did not make take any specific grounds of appeal before the CIT(A). Hence no decision was given by the CIT(A) on this issue. Even before me no specific evidence in this regard was brought to our notice. In these circumstances, we sustain the addition made. - Decided against assessee Interest disallowed - Held that:- The assessee claimed that she has taken loan from her family members which stands at ₹ 24,40,839/- as at 31.03.2005 and she had not paid any interest on the same. The assessee also claimed that she had given interest free loan to the family members which stands at ₹ 11,62,255/- as at 31.03.2005. The assessee contended that she had also borrowed from HSBC Bank: a sum of ₹ 12,13,896/- and this amount was invested in the activity of purchases and sales of Shares & Mutual Funds and the assessee claims a set off of this interest against her incomes. In the Computation of Income, the assessee had claimed the deduction of interest paid on O.D. account at Rs.l,29,649/- against the LIC Commision received but in the appellate proceeding she has changed her stance. However this new claim of the assessee was made only before CIT(A) and was not supported with evidence and facts. The nexus between the borrowed funds and investments in shares and mutual fund could not be proved or explained. In the absence of any direct evidence, the CIT(A) held that the deduction of interest was correctly disallowed by the A.O. and in any case this deduct' on could not have- been claimed against the commission income of LIC. Even before us no evidence in this regard was forthcoming. In the circumstances, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in this regard. - Decided against assessee Demat Charges disallowed - Held that:- The assessee has claimed that she had wrongly disallowed the demat charges of ₹ 1l6/-. The assessee claimed dividend on shares of ₹ 3,15,593/- and it was taken as exempt income. The demat charges are directly related to this non taxable income and therefore this claim was also rejected by the CIT(A). No ground to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). - Decided against assessee LIC premium - rebate u/s.88 denied - Held that:- in the light of the legal provisions of Sec.88 rebate when total income exceeds ₹ 5 lacs cannot be allowed. Therefore the decision of the A.O/CIT(A) is as per law and no interference is called for. - Decided against assessee
|