|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 947 Records
-
2016 (7) TMI 1618
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credits - onus to prove - HELD THAT:- No doubt the primary onus was on the assessee to satisfy the ingredients of Section 68 of the Act as the amount stood credited in its books but it was also incumbent on the revenue to have made enquiries, verification and examination of the loan creditors wherein complete details of the loan creditors were furnished by the assessee instead of merely relying on statement of Shri Surendra Mansukhlal Khandar incriminating assessee, which incriminating statement of Shri Surendra Mansukhlal Khandar had not stood the test of cross examination by the assessee - this matter needs to be set aside and restored to the file of the A.O. and if the A.O. found on verification that the amounts of loan borrowed by the assessee have been repaid by the assessee to the said loan creditors by account payee cheques through banking channel, the additions will stand deleted.
Additions on account of interest on these loans - HELD THAT:- We find that the AO has made additions based on notional interest being paid/payable by the assessee on these loans, we did not find any basis/justification for the same as per the facts emanating from the records. This issue is also set-aside to the file of the AO to be decided based on merits after bringing on record cogent material/basis for the said interest to be brought to tax as income of the assessee.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1608
Addition on account of Royalty - revenue or capital expenditure - AR supported the order of the AO and submitted that Baxter International Inc. USA was in effect an AE of the assessee and the payment of royalty was actually a payment for the purchase of trade-mark/technical know-how under the garb of royalty - HELD THAT:- As perused the License Agreement dated 27th October, 2003 specially clause 2 which specifically excludes the right of the licensee to grant sub licenses under Patent Rights, Trademark Rights and Software Copyright Rights to third parties unless so authorized by the Licensor. Clause 7 of the agreement safeguards the licensor’s right to protect the patent rights, trademark rights and software copyright rights and know-how rights. Clause 9 provides that either party can terminate either the whole or part of the agreement upon service of 30 days’ prior notice to the other party and that the initial tenure of the agreement is for ten years which is extendable for one year every year subject to the termination by notice by either of the parties. However, no where does the agreement mention that Patent/Trademark/Software copyright/know-how is being purchased by the licensee/assessee and that the assessee will have an unfettered right over the same. The ld. DR could not point out to any clause in the agreement which would suggest that there was a transfer of ownership right and that by virtue of the agreement the assessee will become the owner of such trademark/ patent/technical know-how. It is undisputed that the royalty expenditure is a recurring expenditure in the present appeals and is payable for every year the technical know-how/patent/trade-mark continues to be used.
In the case of CIT vs. Lumax Industries Ltd. [2008 (3) TMI 679 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the assessee company entered into an agreement with M/s Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. (SECL) on year to year basis for acquisition of technical knowledge. The assessee claimed the said payment as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim holding that by virtue of the agreement, the assessee had derived an asset of enduring nature. On appeal, the CIT (A) allowed the assessee's claim holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee was a recurring expenditure and not a capital expenditure. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT (A). On Revenue's appeal to the High Court held it to be revenue expenditure.
Depreciation on UPS - Whether UPS formed integral part of the computer system as the same was being used only with computers and not otherwise and hence depreciation was rightly allowable at 60% instead of 15% as allowed by the AO - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT]while deleting the disallowance. The ld. DR could not cite any other judgment where a different view has been held. Hence, we find no reason to interfere and dismiss ground no. 2 of the Department’s appeal.
Accrual of income - Addition on account of interest income - HELD THAT:- The breakup of the interest pertaining to the AY 2006- 07, 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 credited by the bank in its account has been given by the appellant as noted -. Since the appellant did not have any right to claim the interest, it did not have any income accrued to it on account of interest in the Asst. Years preceding 2009-10. However, since the TDS was deducted on the interest credited by the bank, the appellant has taken credit on the same in the ITRs for the earlier Asst. Years. Since the appellant has declared the interest accrued for the entire period in the AY 2009-10 when it got the right to interest income ,the action of the AO in assessing the interest credited by the bank in the AY 2007-08 is not in order. Had the appellant not claimed TDS deducted by the bank in the respective assessment years, the TDS would have been lost. As per the appellant-for the Assessment Year 2008-09 the AO has not made any addition on this account. Therefore the addition made by the AO is deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed
-
2016 (7) TMI 1607
Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - addition made on account of interest paid on EMI for purchase of vehicles - Assessee contended that since no amount was outstanding payable to the above parties as at the end of the year on 31st March, 2011, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS from the payments made to the five parties during the year under consideration - HELD THAT:- We find that recently in RKP COMPANY VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, KORBA [2016 (7) TMI 447 - ITAT RAIPUR] similar issue decided in favour of assessee.
Further, the second proviso appended to Section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 01.04.2013, provides that where an assessee fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVIIB, on any such sum, but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub Section (1) of Section 201, then for the purpose of this sub Section (1) shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso.
We find that the assessee filed certificates from the Chartered Accountants of the five payee companies before the ld. CIT(A) to contend that as the payee companies have shown the amount of interest in the return of income filed and paid due taxes thereon, therefore, in view of the second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, no disallowance was exigible in the case of the assessee u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated on this plea of the assessee while confirming the disallowance made by the AO.
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Market Township Private Limited [2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is declaratory and curative and has retrospective effect. Therefore, we hold that the disallowance cannot be made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on this count also. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Addition under the head “unsecured loan” and interest paid thereon - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, there was some enquiry made by the DDIT in the case of Shri Shailendra Biyani, where it was found that the company did not have the creditworthiness to advance loan and that the Directors of the Company did not appear before the DDIT. This information and material was not confronted to the assessee by the AO during the course of the assessment proceedings or even during the course of first appellate proceedings. Therefore, the said material cannot be used or read against the assessee, as the same has not been controverted to the assessee.
We rely on a very recent decision of H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT, [2016 (7) TMI 273 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein held that on a very fundamental aspect, the Revenue was not justified in making addition at the time of reassessment without having first given the assessee an opportunity to cross examine the deponent on the statement relied upon by the ACIT. Quite apart denial of an amount of cross examination, the Revenue did not even provide the material on the basis of which the Department sought to conclude that the loan was bogus transaction.
This is not having been done, the denial of such opportunity goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the reassessment and, therefore, renders the orders passed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal vulnerable.
We hold that the addition of unsecured loan and interest paid thereon was not justified in the present case as the material collected in the case of Shri Shailendra Biyani in the case of the M/s. East West Finvest India Limited was neither confronted to the assessee nor the assessee was allowed any opportunity of cross-examination of the giver of the statement. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1605
Addition on account of accrued interest on Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) - HELD THAT:- We find that similar issue as before us arose in ITO Vs. Shankarrao Mohite Patil Sahakari Bank Ltd. [2016 (3) TMI 910 - ITAT PUNE] and in ITO Vs. Samarth Sahakari Bank Ltd [2016 (3) TMI 910 - ITAT PUNE] relating to assessment year 2011- 12, order dated 10.02.2016 and Kolhapur Mahila Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. ITO [2014 (1) TMI 1728 - ITAT PUNE], relating t o assessment year 2009-10, vide order dated 29.01.2014. The Tribunal in turn following the ratio laid down by the Pune Bench of Tribunal in ACIT Vs. Osmanabad Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. [2015 (3) TMI 886 - ITAT PUNE]
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. M/s. Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. [2015 (1) TMI 1218 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has laid down the proposition that the interest accrued on NPAs is not taxable in the hands of assessee, in view of the guidelines issued by the RBI.
Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that no addition is warranted on account of interest accrued on NPAs. Accordingly, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made on account of interest accrued on NPAs. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are thus, dismissed.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1604
Tax deducted on the service charges paid for the services provided by Visa/Mastercard International - payment was not an expenditure in the hands of the assessee and had not been incurred for the purpose of the assessee’s business and consequently, the TDS paid was not an allowable deduction - HELD THAT:- In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that assessee had paid tax in respect of the charges for services provided by Visa/Mastercard International on the ground that such an expenditure was borne out of contractual obligation. The claim of the assessee was that in terms of the agreement with Visa/Mastercard International, assessee was required to bear the tax liability on payment made by assessee to such companies and, therefore, during the year under consideration an amount was claimed as business expenditure on this count. The Assessing Officer, however, disallowed the expenditure on the basis of his stand in the earlier years.
CIT(A) noticed that the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for 2012 (7) TMI 155 - ITAT, MUMBAI], [2012 (9) TMI 1065 - ITAT MUMBAI] and [2013 (5) TMI 532 - ITAT MUMBAI]has deleted such addition and following the aforesaid precedents, he has since deleted the addition in the instant year also.
A common point between the parties that the precedents relied upon by CIT(A) in order to delete the addition continue to hold the field and they have not been altered by any higher authority. As a consequence, in view of the aforesaid precedents, there is no error on the part of CIT(A) in deleting the addition, which we hereby affirm. In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment dismissed.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1601
Non-providing reasonable opportunity of being heard by the learned CIT(A) before deciding the appeal - prayer was made in the ground to restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- We accept the submission of the assessee that the appeal may be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A). We, therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, direct the learned CIT(A) to decide the appeal after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1600
Charging of interest u/s 234C - point of dispute by the assessee is that while processing such return under section 143(1) interest u/s 234C was levied on account of shortfall in payment of advance tax on first and second installments, due on 15/09/2011 and 15/12/2011, in respect of gift of ₹ 10.00 crores claimed to have been received on 17/12/2011 - HELD THAT:- Section 209 of the Act provides the computational mechanism of calculating advance tax to be paid. Notably, section 209 envisages calculation of advance tax based on the ‘estimate of current income’ . A reading of section 209 would reveal that in order to calculate the amount of advance tax payable, an assessee is liable to estimate his income. Facts of the present case clearly show that the gift of ₹ 10.00 crores, which has been received by the assessee on 17/12/2011 could not have been foreseen by the assessee so as to enable him to estimate such income for the purpose of payment of advance tax on an anterior date, may it be 15/09/2011 or 15/12/2011.
In such a situation, the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Jindal Irrigation Systems Ltd. [1995 (8) TMI 97 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A] relied upon by the appellant, clearly militates against charging of interest under section 234C of the Act. Therefore, in this background, the levy of interest under section 234C of the Act in the present case is untenable.
Plea of the Revenue that charging of interest under section 234C of the Act is mandatory in natures is concerned, the same in our view, cannot lead to a situation where levy of interest can be fastened even in situations, where there is impossibility of performance by the assessee. Charging of interest would be mandatory, only if, the liability to pay advance tax arises upon fulfilment of the parameters, which in the present case is not fulfilled on account of the peculiar fact situation. Thus, such plea of the Revenue is untenable. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1599
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - invocation of the jurisdiction u/s 148 on the basis of AIR information - entries relating to investment in Mutual fund etc. - HELD THAT:- Assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147/148 on the basis of AIR information was illegal inasmuch as it was simplify in the domain of suspicion and for verification of the source of investment made in Mutual funds, which is impermissible u/s 148. Section 148 does not permit verification, as rightly contended, as the same falls in the domain of section 143(2), after the return is filed. It is an undisputed fact on the record, that but for the AIR information, there was no other material with the AO to reach the requisite satisfaction u/s 148(2).
The above reasons are no reasons in the eyes of law, inasmuch as the source of investment is yet to be verified and explained, and it cannot be held as income escaping assessment for the purposes of section 148. For such a verification, the AO is to assume normal jurisdiction under section 143(2), after the return is filed. It is only during such regular assessment proceedings, that the source can be questioned, and deemed to be income u/s.68/69, in case no satisfactory explanation is offered by assessee.
In the absence of verification/explanation of the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings, it is premature to assume the same as 'income', much less for the purposes of section 148. Therefore, the AIR information is no tangible material to empower the AO to reach the requisite satisfaction as envisaged u/s 147/148. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1598
TPA - AMP expenses - Existence of an international transaction - whether the Revenue has been able to discharge the initial onus of showing that there was an international transaction concerning the Assessee and its foreign AEs - benchmarking analysis by evaluating the AMP expenses incurred by the Assessee in relation to its total sales vis-à-vis its comparables - HELD THAT:- Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order is allowed.
Delay condoned.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1597
Disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- Window for disallowance u/s.14A of the Act is only to the extent of a portion of the tax exempt income and could not swallow the entire amount. If the contention of the Revenue is accepted disallowance would be much more than the claim of exempt income.
As relying on Joint Investments P. Ltd [2015 (3) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT] this is patently incorrect. Maximum amount that could have been disallowed u/s.14A and nothing more. Assessee is given relief to this extent.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1596
Addition u/s 68 - disallowance u/s 40A(3) - HELD THAT:- From the arguments of the learned Authorized Representative and on examining the order of the Tribunal, it is apparent that the documents furnished by the assessee in the paper book was lost sight off and were not examined by the Bench on the earlier occasion and there is no discussion with respect to the same in the order of the Tribunal.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby recall the order of the Tribunal in order to examine the materials on record pointed out by the assessee and thereafter rectify the mistake if any, in the order of the Tribunal. The Registry is directed to post the appeal for hearing in due course and intimate both the parties.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1595
Ex parte order passed by the tribunal - HELD THAT:- Assessment order was passed u/s 144 determining total income at ₹ 56.44 lac as against the returned income of Rs.Nil. The impugned order also came to be passed ex parte. The ld. AR has advanced reasons for the absence of the assessee before the authorities below, with which we are satisfied. Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO for fresh decision after allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. AR has undertaken to extend full cooperation to the AO in such fresh proceedings.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1592
Validity of reopening of assessment - assessment was sought to be made after the expiry of four years - search and seizure operation u/s 132, leading to the proceedings being initiated under Section 153A - HELD THAT:- The original assessment was completed under Section 143(1), after the assessee filed a return of income on 29.10.2014. There was a search and seizure operation u/s 132, leading to the proceedings being initiated under Section 153A. Thereafter, the assessment was again completed under Section 143(3).
This is not a case of normal assessment, which has gone on in a routine manner, without any suspicion in the eyes of the AO. This is a case where a scrutiny assessment was made, after which, a search and seizure operation was conducted and, thereafter, the assessment was again completed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 153A.
In a third round of attack AO claimed that as per the annual report of the Directors for the previous year 2003-2004, an amount was identified to the assets acquired, from out of the total interest paid to another Company. The Directors report forms part and parcel of the records available for scrutiny. The Department could have taken refuge under Explanation-I, if there had been a processing of the return only once. But in this case, there had been a processing of return twice over. On the second occasion, the processing of the return took place, pursuant to a search and seizure operation.
Therefore, this is a case where, in our considered opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that the case would not fall within the purview of the proviso to Section 147 and that even Explanation-I will not go to the rescue of the Revenue. Therefore, we find no justification to entertain the appeal and, hence, it is dismissed.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1591
Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - two companies have made payments on various dates to the Directors/Shareholders, who held substantial interest in the mentioned companies - whether debit balances in the accounts can be construed as “advance” or “loan” by the companies.? - contention of A.R is that the assessee herein is also given advance to those companies and the companies are also benefitted from the loans given to Directors and these are running accounts between the directors and the companies and the running account - HELD THAT:- In view of the binding decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of SUNIL KAPOOR [2015 (3) TMI 812 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein observed that any amount paid to the assessee by the company during the relevant year, loan amount repaid by the assessee in a same year should be deemed to be construed as “dividend” for all purposes.
While computing the deemed dividend one has to be considered the payments made by the assessee to the company. Hence as observed each debit will have to be individually considered because it may or may not be a loan. AO is, therefore, directed to verify the each debit entry on the aforesaid loan and treat only the excess amount of debit in the books of accounts of the company as a deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e).
Only those net amounts which reflected the debit side of the books of accounts of the assessee falling under the definition of the loans and advances, is with regard to these assessee in the relevant assessment years will be entitled to be taken as a deemed dividend.
AO has to compute the day to day debit balance of these assessee in the books of accounts and thereafter the AO has to arrive at average yearly balance of the debit in the books of account of each company and compare with it, accumulated profit in respect of each company and lower of these to be considered as deemed dividend in the hands of present assessee. With this observation, we remit the issue to the file of AO for fresh consideration.
Whether only peak debit balance of loans of each director in the books of accounts in respect of company to be considered to arrive at deemed dividend in terms of Sec.2(22)(e)? - This argument of the ld.A.R is devoid of merit. If we accept this contention of the ld.A.R, it leads to absurdity and makes the Sec.2(22)(e) of the Act as redundant. Since provision is applicable for each payment, then there is no question of arriving at deemed dividend in the hands of Director. Hence, we are not in a position to consider these arguments of the ld.A.R that only peak credit to be considered to determine the deemed dividend.
Double entry of book keeping, the journal entry is also have the financial implication and it cannot be ignored as argued by the ld.A.R. The journal entries are also to be considered while computing the yearly debit balance in respect of loans and advances.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1590
Monetary limit for maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - assessee has submitted that the tax effect in the appeal filed by the Revenue is less than the monetary limit of ₹.10,00,000/- fixed by the CBDT to file an appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal as per the CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 - HELD THAT:- DR fairly conceded the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Being so, the Revenue authorities are precluded from filing the appeal before the Tribunal, since the tax effect is less than ₹.10,00,000/- in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as un-admitted.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1589
Assessment u/s 153A - Depreciation on the opening WDV - Whether no incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer? - HELD THAT:- Under section 153A an assessment has to be made in relation to the search or requisition, namely, in relation to material disclosed during the search or requisition. If in relation to any assessment year, no incriminating material is found, no addition or disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers u/s 153A and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated.
As rightly pointed out by controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by the decision of this court in the case of CIT-1 v. Jayaben Ratilal Sorathia [2013 (7) TMI 850 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that while it cannot be disputed that considering section 153A AO can reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the AO with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year. - Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2016 (7) TMI 1588
Deduction u/s 80-IC - Disallowance of deduction as a case of splitting up of the old unit, rather than of that substantial expansion, as canvassed by the assessee - assessee claimed to have two units, namely Unit-I and Unit-11, at Baddi - HELD THAT:- It remains unchallenged on record that Unit-II of the assessee is an entirely independent unit from the erstwhile unit. It was set up by installing new machinery worth ₹ 71 lacs. Obviously, it has a separate electricity connection. It is being worked by separate employees. The purchases to and sales from Unit-II are separate, as borne out from the separate stock register maintained. All this has duly been taken into consideration by the Tribunal in its order for the assessment year 2006-07 (supra). Physically also, though located in the same complex, Unit-I & Unit-II are housed separately. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the two units are mutually distinct and separate entities, Unit-II having come into being only as a result of the substantial expansion carried out by the assessee. It is in this light, that the applicability of the provisions of section 80IC(6) have to be construed. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in not doing so.
Section 80IC(8)(v) states that ‘initial assessment year’ means the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking or enterprise, inter-alia, begins manufacture, or completes substantial expansion. In the present case, substantial expansion was brought about in the assessment year 2004-05 and that being so, the period of 10 years’ tax holiday is to commence with reference to this assessment year, i.e., A.Y. 2004-05. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80-IC with respect to Unit-II. This was wrongly disallowed by the AO and the ld. CIT(A) erroneously confirmed the disallowance.
The initial assessment year for the proposed Unit-II, for the purposes of section 80-IC(6), was A.Y. 2004- 05. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1587
Revision u/s 263 - additions on account of TP adjustment in relation to transaction with AE - Assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for this reason alone that he has not referred the international transaction between the assessee and its associated company i.e. M/s GLA Trading International PTE Ltd. for determination of ALP - HELD THAT:- CBDT Instruction No. 3 dated 20.05.2003 is not binding on the A.O. Hence, the action of the A.O. of himself determining the TP adjustment without referring the matter to the TPO in the present case is a possible view as per this tribunal order. In this view of the matter, the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous because the view taken by the A.O. of not referring the matter to the TPO is a possible view as per this tribunal order. Learned DR of the revenue could not point out any other basis indicated by the learned CIT in the impugned order to say that the assessment order is erroneous.
This is a settled position of law by now that revisionary powers of CIT u/s 263 can be invoked only when the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Since, in the present case, the assessment order could not be established to be erroneous, the impugned order of CIT u/s 263 is not sustainable - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1585
Addition of payment made on account of 'Mehta Sukhadi' - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2016 (5) TMI 490 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] it is an agreed position between the parties that Question No.(a) as framed herein above, stands concluded against appellant and in favour of the revenue.
Addition on account of inflation of labour charges - appellant is a partnership firm, engaged in the business of trading in tarpaulins, including renting the tarpaulins for hire and erection of Monsoon Sheds as required by its Customer - HELD THAT:- No basis to make any addition on account of labour charges. We notice that in the statement dated 15th September, 1988, Mr. T. V. Goshar has stated that labour expenses are inflated. It is pertinent to note that the order of the CIT(A) which partly deleted additions made on account of labour charges and restricted it up to 10% of ₹ 10.97 lakh, had itself rendered a finding that there was a shortcoming in the accounts of the labour charges till the date of search. In the above context, reliance by the Tribunal upon the statement made under Section 132(4) of the Act after considering the retracted statement, could not be faulted with. The view taken by the impugned order of the Tribunal is a possible view in the facts and circumstance of the present case. Thus, substantial question (b) as framed is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the appellant-assessee.
Addition on account of wrong billing - HELD THAT:- Impugned order does record that the Assessing Officer had rendered a finding that the appellant has not entered bills for hiring charges in its books of account in daytoday running of the business. Thus, the contention of the appellant is not sustainable.
Reliance is placed upon the decision of Gujarat High Court in N. K. Paper Board [1998 (3) TMI 102 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] to hold against the appellant. We find that the citation is incorrect and does not assist the revenue. However, the impugned order of the Tribunal even in the absence of the above decision cannot be held to be bad in law. In the above circumstance, the view of the Tribunal in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer to add an amount to the appellant's income cannot be faulted. This is a possible view on facts found. - Decided in favour of revenue
-
2016 (7) TMI 1584
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - non issue of notice under section 143(2) - HELD THAT:- Question that return filed was within or beyond time prescribed under section 139 or has been filed after notice issued under section 148 or filed earlier after expiry of period under section 139 is not relevant to determine the question whether AO can proceed to make assessment under section 143(3) without issuing notice under section 143(2). The provision being mandatory, Assessing Officer cannot proceed to make assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2). - Decided against revenue.
........
|
