Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 787 Records
-
2022 (11) TMI 1291 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Disallowance of Expenses written off - M/s. Fortune Construction Pvt. Ltd. has refunded an amount from the security deposit paid by the assessee company under the project development agreement - HELD THAT:- The assessee abandoned the project due to commercial expediency and in terms surrendered the same in favour of the land owner M/s. Fortune Construction Pvt. Ltd. Further, the amount of Rs. 13 crores refunded to the assessee towards security deposits is out of the security deposit of Rs. 80 crores as on 31.03.2009 which reduce to Rs. 67 crores as on 31.03.2010. Nothing was produced by the revenue to controvert the submissions filed by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and the finding of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue.
Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. [2018 (9) TMI 75 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that where assessee company set up a new project which was subsequently abandoned, since new project was managed from common funds, control over all business units was in hands of assessee and there was unity of control, it could not be said that pre-operative expenditure incurred by assessee was on a new line of business, thus, same was to be allowed as revenue expenditure.
Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Binani Cement Ltd [2015 (3) TMI 849 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has held that expenditure incurred for construction/acquisition of new facility which was subsequently abandoned at work-in-progress stage was allowable in year of write off as incurred wholly and exclusively for purpose of assessee's business.
We do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.
Disallowance of Customers Settlement Claims - said amount did not crystallize in the year under consideration and therefore a contingent liability - direct and intimate connection between the claim and the business - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the direct and intimate connection between the claim and business is not in dispute before the lower authorities. The settlement of the claim by the assessee pursuant to the legal process arising out of the contractual liability is in the course of carrying on of its business and the same is also not in dispute - claim being revenue in nature is also not disputed by the AO. It is also relevant to mention here that the accounts were duly audited and signed by the auditor on 29.09.2013 before which the order of the State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission was available and therefore, in view of the guidelines issued by the ICAI for events occurring after the balance sheet date and considering the fact that the tax rate of both the assessment years are same, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. Accordingly, ground of appeal no. 1 by the revenue is dismissed.
Addition on account of deposits written off on surrender of land development rights - HELD THAT:- As find from the details so furnished that CASA I, project was implemented and carried. The development rights of project CASA II, were surrendered in terms of registered document dt. 31-10-2012, duly registered as Doc. No. 4758/2012 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Medchal. Pursuant to the cancellation of the development rights, as against the deposit amount of Rs. 17,80,61,366/- the developer returned only an amount of Rs. 14,17,10,000/-. The submission of ld. counsel for the assessee that the balance amount of deposit has not been returned by the developer has not been controverted by the revenue.
The deed of cancellation of surrender of rights is categorical in the preamble mentioned to the effect that the deposit amount refunded was only Rs. 13,67,10,000/-. Once the developer was sure that it is not possible to receive back any further amount of the deposit, as a commercial expediency the balance amount of Rs. 3,63,51,366/- has been written off, since it is arising out of the business exigency and commercial expediency. We uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. The ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Validity of valuation by the DVO u/s 142A - Estimation of value of assets by Valuation Officer - Applicability of provisions of section 142A(6) - CIT-A allowed the appeal of the assessee - HELD THAT:- The valuation officer shall send a copy of the valuation report to the AO within the period of six months from the end of the month in which reference was made under sub section (1) of section 142A - in this case, the DVO has submitted his report on 14.06.2018 based on the reference made by the AO on 12.09.2017. The due date of the report of the valuation officer is ending on March 2018. But the DVO has submitted the report with the delay of 3 months, beyond the due date prescribed under the Act. The Ld.DR also could not contest the argument of the AR that the DVO’s valuation report is non-est in the eyes of law, since it is submitted beyond the prescribed due date u/s 142A(6)
There is no material placed before us regarding any stay being granted on the operation of the order of the Hon’ble ITAT. In the absence of the same pending disposal of the appeal by decision of Hon’ble ITAT in [2019 (9) TMI 628 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] is valid in law as on date. We are therefore, in concurrence with the CIT(A). We are of the considered view that the CIT(A) has rightly considered the provisions of the Act, hence, no interference is required in the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1289 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition u/s 43CA - substantial difference between the market value and the agreement value in respect of some immovable property sold - assessee-company entered into this transaction of cancellation of earlier purchase transactions - HELD THAT:- Sec. 43CA is applicable in the case of transfer of property in addition to other ingredients of the section. In this case what we observed assessee-company inadvertently entered into a transaction of purchase of agricultural land, which was void ab-initio. It means assessee was never a lawful owner of the said agricultural land as mentioned supra. When assessee is not an owner of any asset, there can’t be any question of transferring the same to someone else whether provisions of sec 43CA is complied with or not will be a secondary issue.
In this case assessee-company simply rectified its earlier mistake to safe-guard the financial interest of the company and to come out an unlawful transaction entered earlier. For ready reference we are reproducing herein below the relevant provisions of Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 along with relevant provision of contract Act and Transfer of Property Act.
In view of the above action of AO in applying sec 43CA On the given facts of case was unlawful. AO and Ld. CIT(A) committed a mistake by ignoring the facts of the case and provisions of other civil laws applicable in the present case. In our considered opinion assessee being party of cancellation deed, do not tantamount to entering the transaction of sale /transfer. In absence of element of transfer sec 43CA can’t be applied. We therefore direct the AO to delete the addition to be deleted with consequential reliefs. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1288 - ITAT BANGALORE
Revision u/s 263 - exemption u/s 10(1) - CIT setting aside the assessment order passed by the Ld.AO, with a direction, to carry out fresh examination of the claim of agricultural income claimed to be exempt by the assessee under section 10 (1) - HELD THAT:- Before us, the assessee has not filed any agreement, showing the lands being leased in favour of the assessee. It is submitted that these were the documents filed by the assessee in reply to the query raised by the AO at the time of original assessment proceedings. Even there are no agreements placed before us that reveals ownership in land by the assessee, on which farming was carried out.
From the materials placed before the Ld.AO it is prima facie inferred that the no details are filed by the assessee and the Ld.AO has not verified the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 10(1) of the Act. Thus, in our view, the original assessment is completed without proper enquiries, that necessitated the Ld.Pr.CIT to issue section 263 of the Act. We draw support from the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. [2012 (1) TMI 76 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] Therefore in our view, the decisions relied by the Ld.AR are distinguishable on facts with that of assessee. We therefore do not fine any infirmity in the action of the Ld.Pr.CIT in invoking the provisions of section 263 - Decided against assessee.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1287 - ITAT MUMBAI
Revision u/s 263 - As per CIT not declaring of deemed rent in the return of income and A.O. erroneously passed the order without considering the same - HELD THAT:- Section 23(5) of the Act is not applicable for the assessee for this assessment year. The assessee explained and replied to the revenue about the issues in response to the notices of the Ld. PCIT. The formation of the opinion and belief of the Ld. PCIT was changing time to time after receiving reply of the assessee.
We may also like to add here that section 23(5) of the Act has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2018 whereby notional annual value of the property held as stock in trade is sought to be brought to tax. The said amendment is only prospective in application.
PCIT in his third show cause notice had sought to consider the taxability of deemed rental income not u/s 23(5) but u/s 23(1)(a) - Assessee had duly submitted that rental income has been correctly offered in return of income - PCIT has not brought with cogent evidence on record as to how the submission made by the assessee is incorrect. All facts & submission with regard to offer of rental income is already on record before the Ld. PCIT. Nothing prevented the Ld. PCIT to just verify those facts which are staring on him, before invoking his revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263
A.O. is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and hence, Ld. PCIT action u/s 263 of the Act is beyond jurisdiction and the same order is quashed. Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1269 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment - non disposal of objections - HELD THAT:- Our attention is drawn to the order dated 09.03.2022 received through e-mail by the assessee in relation to the very assessment year. The total income of the assessee is computed as nil. This, according to learned counsel, is no longer available on the website. The reason put forth by the other side is possibly because on 08.03.2022 the Court granted the interim order in favour of the petitioner. Not only the issue of disposal of objection has been put to the rest, but, ultimately, the assessment has been framed where no addition has been made to the income which has thus favoured the petition. The cause of the petition therefore no longer survives.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1268 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment - non disposal of objections - HELD THAT:- Our attention is drawn to the order dated 09.03.2022 received through e-mail by the assessee in relation to the very assessment year. The total income of the assessee is computed as nil. This, according to learned counsel, is no longer available on the website. The reason put forth by the other side is possibly because on 08.03.2022 the Court granted the interim order in favour of the petitioner. Not only the issue of disposal of objection has been put to the rest, but, ultimately, the assessment has been framed where no addition has been made to the income which has thus favoured the petition. The cause of the petition therefore no longer survives.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1264 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Addition based on seized document - addition on account of receipt of rent - As stated as per the Seized Document, the Vasant Square Mall was in the possession of the Assessee before 01st October 2006 and the rent started with effect from 01st October 2006 - ITAT has held that the additions made by the AO are factually incorrect, illegal and arbitrary - HELD THAT:- In view of the factual finding returned by ITAT in the assessment proceedings to the effect that no fresh material was taken into account by the AO for making additions in the present proceedings and the sole basis for making the additions was the Seized Document, we find that the issues raised in the present appeal are covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court VINITA CHAURASIA [2017 (5) TMI 992 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - The additions were deleted by the Court after detailed examination of the merits. The Special leave petition filed against the said judgment also stands dismissed. We therefore find that no substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the ITAT. The appeals is dismissed.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1263 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - order passed under Section 148A(d) - Non supply of incriminating material / information against the petitioner - HELD THAT:- As we have perused the reply dated 29th March, 2022 filed on 30th March, 2022 with the Assessing Officer. In the said reply, the petitioner has only asked to be served with the information / documents in possession of the respondent-revenue. The petitioner has given no reply on merits.
This Court is of the view that if the petitioner desired the requisite information / documents in possession of the respondent-revenue, he should have asked for the same on the day one and certainly not waited for seven months to approach this Court.
Since the matter has now progressed to the next stage i.e. Section 148 stage, this Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the respondent-revenue to supply the incriminating material / information against the petitioner within four weeks.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1262 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Stay of demand - recovery proceedings - pre-condition for grant of stay of recovery - pre-condition for deposit of 20% of the total demand - HELD THAT:- The stay application has come to be dismissed by way of impugned order that contains a fatal flaw, being that the Assessing Authority proceeds on the basis that there is a pre-condition for deposit of 20% of the total demand for the grant of stay till disposal of first appeal.
This view patently erroneous insofar as the Income Tax Act does not provide for any pre-condition for grant of stay of recovery, as this Court has made clear on several occasions.
Office Memorandum (OM) referred to by the Assessing Authority in F.No.404/72/93-ITCC dated 31.07.2017 only increases the rate of disputed demand from 15% as set out under Instruction No.1914 dated 21.03.1996 to 20%. However, the actual tax to be demanded, ranging from 0% to 100%, would depend upon the existence of three factors, viz., (i) prima facie case, (ii) financial stringency and (iii) balance of convenience and it is only upon a consideration of the aforesaid factors that the officer would dispose an application for stay.
This discussion does not find place in the present impugned order and rather, the Assessing Authority proceeds on the basis that 20% is the standard demand that the petitioner must be called upon to remit.
Thus impugned order is quashed. The stay petition is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall call upon the assessee, consider materials, if any, placed by the assessee before him in support of the aforesaid three conditions and pass orders upon the stay application, within a period of six (6) weeks from today.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1261 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Capital gain - 'Transfer' within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) - recital to the effect that possession of the property in question was delivered in part performance of the contract - HELD THAT:- As in order to attract Section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act, it is absolutely essential that possession of the property in question should be delivered in terms of Section 53-A of the T.P. Act. In the instant case, a perusal of the Sale Agreement, Agency Agreement and GPA, will clearly indicate that possession of the said property covered under the said documents has not been delivered as mandatorily required under Section 53-A of the T.P. Act. In fact, the contents of the said documents will clearly indicate that there is no recital with regard to the petitioner handing over possession or putting the party in possession in part performance as required under Section 53- A of the T.P. Act.
Sale Agreement under which, the petitioner is said to have agreed to sell the said land in favour of the third party is also not a registered document as required under Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act and on this ground also, it cannot be said that the petitioner had delivered or put the other party in possession in part performance for the purpose of Section 53- A of the T.P. Act.
Thus in the absence of any recital in the aforesaid three documents, much less any recital to the effect that possession of the property in question was delivered in part performance of the contract, the three documents executed by the petitioner cannot be construed or treated as constituting a 'Transfer' within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act. Thus so long as the documents do not constitute a 'Transfer' within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) of the IT Act, the petitioner cannot be made liable to pay capital gains tax on the amount received by him. Thus the impugned Assessment order deserves to be quashed and the matter remitted back to respondent 1- Assessing Officer for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1260 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment proceedings maintainable against the dead person - Intimation from legal heir - HELD THAT:- Bachuji Balaji Thakor died on 22.10.2018 in whose name, notice was issued by the income tax authorities on 31.3.2021 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen assessment in respect of Assessment Year 2016-2017. The petitioner herein who happens to be the legal representative intimated to the income tax officer concerned that the noticee Bachuji Balaji Thakor had died long back and that the notice was without jurisdiction. The Income Tax authorities did not pay heed to the said intimation.
The facts of the case did not offer any fact or circumstances to suggest that the legal representative of the deceased assessee in any manner submitted to the jurisdiction of the income tax authorities or in any way participated in the proceedings. On the contrary, communication dated 22.3.2022 was sent to the income tax officer by the legal representative that the noticee Bachuji Balaji Thakor had died.
the present petition deserves to be allowed. It is hereby allowed by holding that the impugned notice, which was against the dead assessee, could not have been sustained.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1259 - ITAT DLEHI
Addition under the head ‘commission paid to others’ - commission expenses incurred by the Assessee, being a Medical Doctor by profession - claim of the Assessee that the Assessing Officer had made addition by completely misunderstanding and misinterpreting the facts of the case is frivolous and totally unwarranted - HELD THAT:- We are unable to accept the contradictory stand of the Assessee taken before the L. Commissioner because the contradictory stand of the Assessee clearly seems to be concocted story, twisting facts, erratic, vague and superfluous and thus liable to be depreciated. Even otherwise as per the judgements referred to above, the payment of commission by the Assessee for referring patients to it by any stretch of imagination, cannot be accepted as legal or as per public policy of India, hence such commission is not an allowable expense. Consequently the Assessee in any case is not entitled for any relief on merit, we are thus inclined not to interfere in sustaining the addition.
Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to extend the assessment proceedings beyond the points of limited scrutiny - As the case of the Assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and the addition in hand does not emanate from the grounds on which the case of the Assessee was picked up for limited scrutiny. Though the Ld. Commissioner, in the impugned order incorporated the legal contention of the Assessee objecting to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to extend the assessment proceedings beyond the points of limited scrutiny, but the ld. Commissioner has not adverted to decide this contention of Assessee in the impugned order.
As it is settled law that the Revenue Authorities are not allowed to travel beyond the issues involved in limited scrutiny cases, except in exceptional circumstances and by completing the relevant formalities before proceeding to other issues, which in the instant case does not appears to have adhered to. Hence, we deem it appropriate to delete the addition in hand. Consequently, the appeal of the Assessee is liable to be allowed.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1258 - ITAT PANAJI
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - Claim denied as it is only a Urban Co-operative Bank then a cooperative society and the said interest income represents deposits made in a cooperative bank and thus not entitled for the relief in issue as per section 80P(4) - HELD THAT:- Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act allows whole deduction of income by way of interest or dividend derived by Cooperative Society from its investments with any other co-operative society. This provision does not make any distinction with regard to the source of investment because this section envisages deduction in respect of any income derived by cooperative society from in his investment with a cooperative society. So the Revenue is not required to look another of investment whether it was formed as required within time or otherwise.
As heard the considered of the case of Totagars Co-operative Sales Society Ltd [2010 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] which was relied by the Ld. DR and find that the Hon’ble Apex Court has dilapidated on the issue of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) but not on section 80P(2)(d). We also observed that in the case of Totagars Cooperative Sales Society Ltd, [2017 (1) TMI 1100 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] itself the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d).
Considering all the judgments we hereby hold that the investment of assessee in cooperative bank is eligible investment u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The interest of the said investment related to Cooperative Society, assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1257 - ITAT KOLKATA
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - Non establishing identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction - HELD THAT:- DR has fairly agreed that the Assessing Officer in the remand report has reported that the assessee has duly established the identity, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction and he has also fairly agreed that the issue is also squarely covered by the Decision of AMBITION AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED [2021 (11) TMI 750 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and SMT. B. JAYALAKSHMI [2018 (8) TMI 208 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - Decided against revenue.
Addition u/s 14A - expenditure incurred towards tax exempted income - HELD THAT:- As held in many decisions where the assessee has not derived any tax exempt income from investments, then no disallowance is attracted u/s 14A of the Act. - Decided against revenue.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1256 - ITAT CHENNAI
Validity of re-opening of assessment - reasons to believe - change of opinion - fresh materials subsequent to completion of original assessment - Eligibility of exemption claimed u/s.10AA - HELD THAT:- Although, the original assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) of the Act, on 29.09.2011, but the AO has not considered the issue of exemption claimed u/s.10AA of the Act, in right perspective of law and thus, we are of the considered view that, when the AO has not expressed any opinion, the question of concept of ‘change of opinion’ does not arise.
AO has formed reasonable belief of escapement of income on the basis of fresh materials subsequent to completion of original assessment order and said materials may come from the assessment records also. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the arguments of the assessee that there is no fresh tangible material in the possession of the AO to form reasonable belief of escapement of income and thus, we reject the arguments of the assessee and uphold the reopening of assessment.
Computation of deduction u/s.10A / 10AA - AO has not accepted the claim of the assessee on the ground that no proper evidence has been filed to substantiate the claim - We find that if assessee is able to explain reduction in export turnover with necessary evidences, then the AO is bound to consider the turnover declared in revised return of income for the purpose of assessing income and also for claiming deduction u/s.10A / 10AA of the Act. As regards the second observation of the AO with regard to non-eligibility of the assessee for claiming such deduction, the assessee has filed necessary copies of approval from STPI under the provisions of Sec.10A / 10AA - From the above, it appears that the assessee is eligible for claiming deduction u/s.10A / 10AA of the Act. Since, the assessee has declared net loss for the year, the question of claiming deduction u/s.10A / 10AA of the Act, does not arise.
Deduction u/s.10A / 10AA of the Act, cannot be rejected, in case, the assessee is entitled for claiming such deduction. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the issue needs to go back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration and thus, we set aside the issue and direct the AO to re-consider the claim of the assessee in light of various averments including justification for reduction in export turn over and consider the issue of computation u/s.10A / 10AA of the Act, in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1255 - ITAT PUNE
Capital Gain on sale of land - liability to be taxed in the hands of the appellant - appellant requests your honour to kindly direct the learned assessing officer to allow the credit of income tax paid by the company on the capital gain on sale of land against the income tax payable by the appellant on the capital gain arises from the sale of said land - HELD THAT:- We hardly see any reason to accept the assessee’s instant latter argument in light of hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in CIT vs., Ch Atchaiah [1995 (12) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] that the correct amount of income has to be assessed in right person’s hands only. Faced with this situation, we hardly see any reason to entertain the assessee’s instant remand request seeking credit of the alleged taxes payment by the company in this appellant’s hands. Rejected accordingly.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1254 - ITAT KOLKATA
Addition u/s 68 - bogus LTCG - Penny stock purchases - HELD THAT:- Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkata unearthed a racket of penny stock companies, which are managed by entry operators and brokers, wherein share prices are rigged, abnormally high so as to provide accommodation entries in the form of bogus long-term capital gain to various beneficiaries. The investigation report mentioned the list of 84 companies, which were found to be penny stock companies and all these companies have poor financial, no regular business activity was carried out and the share prices increased abnormally with the help of entry operators and brokers.
Recently Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj & Others[2022 (6) TMI 670 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] dealing with the similar facts and the issue relating to the penny stock companies decided against the assessee thereby confirming the addition under section 68 of the Act as well as confirming the revisionary proceedings under section 263 - Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1253 - ITAT DELHI
Benefit of exemption u/s 11 - society or trust draws its inspiration for certain charitable activities from religious tenents - Claim denied as activities carried out by the society during the instant assessment year were not found to be covered by any limb of ‘charitable purpose’ as defined in section 2 (15) - CIT-A allowed the exemption - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2018 (3) TMI 1903 - ITAT DELHI] imparting of education in theology, of the nature given in the New Theological College, is very much an education within the meaning of education as defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sole Trustee LokShikshan Trust [1975 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] and which would entitle an institution to claim exemption under the beneficial provisions of the Income Tax Act.
It also flows that merely because a society or trust draws its inspiration for certain charitable activities from religious tenents, as long as charitable activities of the society are not confined to the benefit of any particular community, it is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act.
In the present case of the assessee, while the donors to the society may have been giving to it in the belief that they were propagating and promoting Christianity, the society itself has confined its activities to the aims and objectives laid down in the Memorandum of Association in as much as in Theology can be described as vocational training and the school, run by it, impart a secular education. Accordingly, merely because it bears its activities on the basis of a religious calling, there is no reason to hold that section 13 (1) (b) of the Income Tax Act would be attracted to it. Therefore, in considered opinion, the assessee society is eligible to claim exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act. - Decided against revenue.
-
2022 (11) TMI 1252 - ITAT DELHI
Addition on account of share application money by invoking the provision u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- The appellant undoubtedly has failed in course of assessment and appellate proceedings to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the so-called share applicants and genuineness of transactions.
AO has rightly invoked the provisions of the section 68 to make addition on account of share application money and added it back to the total income of the appellant. Thus, hold that the action of the AO in making addition on account of share application money is justified and therefore the addition u/s 68 made by the AO is confirmed. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
............
|