2016 (4) TMI 633 - ITAT DELHI
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-37 (1) , New Delhi Versus Mr. Percival Sam Billimoria
Disallowance on account of entertainment expenses and traveling expenses - CTI(A) restricted the disallowance - Held that - In the present case, it is noticed that the assessee had been associated with two firms i.e. M/s AZB & Partners and M/s Ajay Bahl & Co. to render consultancy services and advice on the matters relating to his field of expertise. The AO asked the aforesaid firms u/s 133(6) of the Act about the involvement of the assessee and in response the above said two firms did not deny the facts that the services were rendered by the assessee. In the present case, the incurrin ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 551 - ITAT DELHI
Income-tax Officer, Ward 33 (2) , New Delhi Versus Anand Jewellers
Purchases doubtful - Estimation of commission income 1 of total purchases - as per AO the assessee was not running regular business but only providing accommodation entries since assessee failed to substantiate sales - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The assessee has furnished VAT return and VAT audit report. The total turnover declared before the VAT authorities are tallied with the turnover declared in the Income-tax return. The assessee has taken cash credit loan from PNB, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi against hypothecation of stock. As per submissions, he has fulfilled the requirement ....... - .......
2016 (4) TMI 956 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income Tax Officer Versus M/s Indepesca Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
Determination of income - bogus purchases - Held that - AO had disallowed an amount under the head unproved purchases, that in the rectification proceedings carried out on two occasions he reduced it to ₹ 7.54 Crores, that he had issued notices u/s.133(6)of the Act on test check basis, that during the appellate proceedings the FAA had forwarded certain documents to the AO and had called for his comments, that the successor AO alleged many an irregularities in the accounts maintained by the assessee, that the FAA has given categorical finding of fact about filing of confirmation letters o ....... - .......
2016 (3) TMI 206 - ITAT DELHI
ITO, Ward13 (4) , New Delhi Versus OPG Leasing & Finance P. Ltd.,
Addition u/s 68 on account of share application money received by the assessee - issue of notice u/s 133(6) came back un-served - Held that - Notice u/s 133(6) is issued by the AO could not be served on the share applicants and Inspector s report also shows that this companies do not exists at the given address, we are of the view that no fault can be found against the assessee for this. Instead of the assessee has persuaded these companies to file confirmation independently along with all the requisite details and those parties have responded submitting independent information before the AO. ....... - .......
2016 (2) TMI 791 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income Tax Office 25 (1) (1) , Mumbai Versus Shri Chetan Dinesh Mehta
Addition on account of difference in debtors and creditors - information called by the AO u/s 133(6) of the Act directly from the selling/purchasing parties with respect to the account of the assessee appearing in their books of accounts - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - The CIT(A) has allowed the appeal on the ground that the AO should have summoned these parties as well the assessee and recorded their statement on oath and allowed the cross-examination to the assessee before drawing adverse inference against the assessee but as per the facts as emerging from the orders of the autho ....... - .......
2016 (1) TMI 645 - ITAT DELHI
DCIT Versus Norma India Ltd.
Disallowance on account of bogus purchases - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that - Assessee has given the details of the address, which are available with it at the time of purchases and sales tax assessment records of that assessee which proves that assessee has not provided incorrect address. Further Purchase bills shows all the requisite details of the suppliers in the bills, in our view it is a contemporaneous confirmation in itself by suppliers. Ld. AO is of the view that as both the suppliers have PAN however both of them are not assessed to Income tax. On this aspect no fault can be ....... - .......
2015 (8) TMI 884 - ITAT DELHI
Income Tax Officer, Ward 25 (1) , New Delhi. Versus Rekha Bansal
Addition u/s 68 - unsecured loan - AO made impugned addition in absence of details, confirmation, bank accounts and ITR copies of the alleged creditors Shri Manoj Kumar and Shri Uttam Singh - CIT(A) deleted the addition on the basis of information received from the respective banks of the creditors in compliance to the notice issued to these banks u/s 133(6) - Held that - CIT(A) was right in holding that the assessee discharged her onus by way of filing required details, confirmation and other relevant documentary evidence and also by filing PAN Number and addresses of the respective creditors ....... - .......
2015 (8) TMI 918 - ITAT DELHI
Cheil India Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known As Cheil Communications India Pvt Ltd) Versus Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3 (3) , New Delhi
Addition of amount paid/payable to the vendor i.e. Star India Private Limited ( Star India ) u/s 68 - Star India did not respond to the notice issued by the learned AO under section 133(6) - Held that - Disallowance has been made and upheld by the authorities below merely on the basis that the Star India Pvt. Ltd. did not bother to respond the notices issued under sec. 133(6) of the Act by the Assessing Officer to them. The authorities below have not bothered to examine the veracity of the documents filed by the assessee in support of the genuineness of the claimed payment made to Star India P ....... - .......
2015 (5) TMI 112 - ITAT DELHI
Callina Care Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO
Bogus transactions - Addition on expenditure for purchase of packing material - Unexplained share application money - Applicability of revised monetary limits for filing appeal to Tribunal at ₹ 4 Lacs - Instruction No. 5/14 issued by the CBDT on 10.7.2014 - Held that - It is indisputable fact during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had issued summon to M/s S.R. Enterprises (seller of packing material). The notices were returned unserved and same was duly intimated to the assessee. The two Inspectors who carried out local enquiries on 18.10.2010 also could not l ....... - .......
2015 (2) TMI 981 - ITAT DELHI
Tata McGraw Hill Education Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle 16 (1) , New Delhi.
Transfer pricing adjustment - international transactions in the Back office support services segment - selection of comparables - Held that - Accel Transmatic Ltd. (Seg.) - it can be seen from the Annual report of this company has three divisions, namely, Systems and Services Division, Technologies Division and Animation Division. A bare perusal of the nature of activities done by this company under this segment divulges that it is into software development services and also the sale of software products. On the other hand, the assessee in question is involved into rendering software non-devel ....... - .......
2015 (1) TMI 962 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Mr. Anil Bhansali Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(2) Hyderabad.
Reopening of assessment - Assessee filed the return as Resident but not ordinarily Resident - SOTP attributable to services rendered in India - value of perquisites as unexplained income - Indo-US DTAA - whether the provisions of the section 5(1)(c) and section 9(1)(ii) of the Act are not applicable to the appellant? - Held that - As can be seen from facts on record, prior to his joining Microsoft India (R & D) P. Ltd., on 01.01.2004, assessee was an employee of Microsoft Corporation, USA and was a non-resident. While, he was employed with Microsoft, USA assessee was granted stock awards a ....... - .......
2015 (1) TMI 650 - ITAT PUNE
M/s. Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd. Versus JCIT (OSD), Circle-1(2), Pune
Addition invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(i) - fee for technical services - Held that - The insistence of the Revenue to say that the amount has been paid in this year and therefore it is covered within the prescription of section 40(a)(i) of the Act is quite otiose to the requirements of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. There is no dispute to the proposition that the said payment has not been claimed as a revenue expenditure while computing the income chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession in this year and therefore the same would not fall for consideration ....... - .......
2015 (1) TMI 1121 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Pattambi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Others Versus Union of India and anothers
Constitutional validity of section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent the words enquiry or have been added thereto, also incorporating second proviso - Held that - The fact that the petitioners Bank is a society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act/Rules and that there is a separate procedure for incorporation/registration/functioning/control and regulation including auditing of funds etc., are not at all germane to the course and proceedings to be pursued in terms of Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act. The provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act/Rules ma ....... - .......
2014 (12) TMI 174 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s. Irfan Carpets
Deletion of additions of creditors Onus discharged by assessee regarding genuineness of transactions - Held that - The assessee has declared a better G.P. rate at 6.07 as compared to 3.24 in the preceding year and 3.07 in the year before preceding year - the AO issued letters u/s 133(6) of the Act, out of which 14 letters returned back unserved - he requested the AO to serve the notices through notice server but instead the AO confronted the assessee vide order-sheet dated 24.08.2009, that the onus lies on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the creditors and accordingly the assessee ....... - .......
2014 (11) TMI 796 - ITAT DELHI
Uem India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle 18(1), New Delhi
Addition of outstanding balance of certain creditors Failure to comply with notices issued u/s 136(6) Held that - AO failed to offer any comment on the evidences filed by the assessee and insisted for sustenance of disallowance on the basis that notices u/s 133(6) remained uncomplied with - details submitted by the assessee before CIT(A) wherein the invoices raised by the parties along with the copies of bank statement from where the payments were made, are placed the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition on the basis of non filling of confirmations, is not justified - CIT(A) should have ....... - .......