Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Patel Beverages, Prop. M/s. Navneet B. Patel HUF Versus ITO, Ward-2 (2)

Addition in respect of opening capital balance as on 1st April, 2004 - Held that:- The assessee appears to be partnership firm as per the balancesheet, but filed the return for the year under consideration in the status of HUF. In the account of the partners, there is Addition of opening capital balance as on 1st April, 2004 - Held that:- Opening balance but the assessee did not file the return of the partnership firm for Assessment Year 2004-05, though the return was filed by Shri Navnitbhai B .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l High Court in the case of Pankaj Dyestuff Industries (2005 (7) TMI 601 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ), would not be applicable to the case of the assessee. Considering the facts of the case and the arguments of both the sides, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this point and the same is sustained. - Decided against assessee.

Disallowance of expenses - Held that:- CIT(A) considered each and every expenses and has sustained the disallowance only whe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to ₹ 7,53,987/-. - Decided partly in favour of assessse. - ITA No. 3278/Ahd/2009 - Dated:- 15-5-2015 - Shri G.D.Agrawal and Shri Rajpal Yadav, JJ For the Petitioner: Shri Hardik Vora, AR For the Respondent: Shri Roop Chand, Sr. DR. ORDER PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT: This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-II, Baroda dated 22.09.2009 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s in recording the following finding in para 4.2, page No. 5 of his order as below: "In appeal the learned Authorized Representative withdrew his claim of being a proprietary concern and admitted to being a partnership firm." 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the ground of appeal relating to an addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- u/s 68 on the basis that the same was not pressed 3. Ground No.4 of the assessee s appeal reads as under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rtnership firm and its partners are Shri Navnitbhai B Patel and Shri Viral N Patel. In view of these facts, the Assessing Officer assessed the assessee namely M/s. Patel Beverages as partnership firm and tax rate applicable to the firm have been charged, though the return has been filed by the assessee as HUF. The Assessing Officer further noticed that in the balance-sheet enclosed alongwith return of income for Assessment Year 2005-06, the assessee has shown the opening capital of both the part .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ut that the return of income of the partners was filed for Assessment Year 2004-05; however, on verification of the return, he found that the return was filed by Shri Navnitbhai B Patel-individual and there is no evidence of these amounts showing as closing balance in that year. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as under:- 3.3…. To explain the source of this contribution, the appellant sought to show that a return of income of the partnership was filed for assessment year 2004-05. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

us of a firm since the year 2000. However, no return of income has been filed by the firm. It is also seen that no confirmation has been filed form Shri Viral N. Patel claiming the source of the credit entries in the capital account. In view of the fact that there is no evidence on record to explain the credit entries of ₹ 8,08,938/-, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is confirmed. Through the amount discussed in the body of the order is ₹ 8,08,938/- the addition made is  .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pankaj Dyestuff Industries vide Income Tax Reference No.241 of 1993. However, when at the time of hearing the Bench asked the assessee to prove that the partnership firm filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2004-05 in which there is a closing balance in the account of both the partners amounting to ₹ 4,04,469/- each, the assessee was unable to produce any such return. The a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ay on the assessee. It is not the case of the revenue that the partners of the assessee firm are fictitious. The income-tax officer has not disputed that the credits in the accounts of the partners were not deposits from the partners. Moreover, it is an admitted position that this was the second year of the firm, and that it was running in loss. It is true that the Income-tax Officer did not accept the explanation given on behalf of the assessee in respect of the new deposits or cash credits in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

osited in their accounts are their own, the Income-tax Officer is entitled to and may proceed against the partners and assess the same in their hands if their explanation is not found satisfactory. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, both the Deputy CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal have found that the assessee had discharged the primary onus which was on it by offering explanation, which has not been found to be incorrect or false in any manner. The interest of the revenue is a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

owever, in the case of the assessee, the series of incident raises serious doubt about the genuineness of the partnership firm as well as the credit balance in the account of the partners. The assessee appears to be partnership firm as per the balancesheet, but filed the return for the year under consideration in the status of HUF. In the account of the partners, there is opening balance but the assessee did not file the return of the partnership firm for Assessment Year 2004-05, though the retu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pankaj Dyestuff Industries (supra), would not be applicable to the case of the assessee. Considering the facts of the case and the arguments of both the sides, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this point and the same is sustained. Accordingly, Ground No.4 of the assessee s appeal is rejected. 8. Ground No.5 of the assessee s appeal reads as under:- 4.0 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d professional charges 139631 5 Freight outward expense 399463 6 Security charges 60000 Rs.9,74,514 10. The Assessing Officer made the disallowance on the ground that the assessee failed to deduct the TDS on the above payments and therefore, applying the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), he made disallowance. On appeal, the CIT(A) recorded the finding that, considering the nature of expenses, there was no liability upon the assessee to deduct TDS and therefore, provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d has sustained the disallowance only when the expenditure was not allowable. The ld. Counsel for the assessee was unable to controvert the findings recorded by the CIT(A). Accordingly, the same is sustained and Ground No.5 of the assessee s appeal is rejected. 12. Ground No.6 of the assessee s appeal, which reads as under, was not pressed by the ld. Counsel at the time of hearing. Accordingly, the same is rejected as not pressed. 6.0 Without prejudice to the Ground No. 5, the learned Commission .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Latest Happenings     ↓  

News: Notification Issued For GST Actionable Claim On Branded Food Products

News: GST Refund - Blockage of Working Capital of Exporters - earlier also there was a normal blockage of funds for a period of 5-6 months at least

News: Clarification about Transition Credit - ₹ 1.27 lakh crore of credit of Central Excise and Service Tax was lying as closing balance as on 30th June, 2017 - claim of credit of ₹ 65,000 crore is not unexpected

Article: 20 Things You must know about E Way Bills in GST Law

Article: MISTAKES IN DRAFTING

Forum: Duty Drawback- Urgent

Highlight: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg. - Circular

Highlight: The definition of "subsidiary company" or "subsidiary" u/s 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013 shall come into force w.e.f. 20-9-2017

Highlight: Central Government notified the All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017 - Notification

Notification: All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017

Circular: Investment by Foreign Portfolio Investors in Corporate Debt Securities Review

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: List of Exempted supply of services under the CGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under CGST Act

Highlight: Acceptance of deposits by companies from its members - conditions relaxed in case of Specified IFSC Public company and a private company - Rule 3 amended

Notification: Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 8th September, 2017

News: Tax Payers Advised To Confirm Identities Of Income Tax Search Authorities

Notification: Amendment in Appendix 3 (SCOMET items) to Schedule- 2 of ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items 2012

Forum: GST Invoice

Notification: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017

Circular: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg.

News: GST implementation smoother than expected: Jaitley

Forum: GST - TRAN1 - filed - Data uploaded with Remarks Processed with Error - Not coming in Electronic credit ledger - need suggession guidance

Forum: 3B mistake

Forum: Input tax credit

Forum: Excise duty credit on finished stock at additional place of business.

Forum: Due date of Filing TRAN-1

Highlight: Diversion of income at source - Joint venture agreement - 97% of the receipt transfer to M/s TRG Industries (P) Ltd. - scope of the agreement - it is diversion by overriding title - not taxable in the hands of assessee - HC

Highlight: Expenditure on eligible projects or schemes u/s 35AC - After 01.04.2017 the legislature desired to withdraw such deduction. - The Union legislature was competent to introduce such amendment - HC

Highlight: Transfer of trading assets at cost price, the profit component also stood transferred to the outgoing Directors, which otherwise belonged to the Company - the fact that AO has made the addition in the hands of the Directors would not make any difference - additions confirmed - HC

Highlight: The interest u/s 234B of the Act cannot go beyond the stage of S.245D(I) before the Settlement Commission - HC

Highlight: Galvanized iron pipe is a different commercial commodity than a iron pipe, therefore the activity of galvanization in our considered opinion amounts to manufacture - Deduction u/s 80-IB allowed - HC

Highlight: Penalty u/s 271C - non deduction of TDS on interest paid to sister concerns in terms of Section 194A - Levy of penalty confirmed - HC

Highlight: Disallowance of interest - reference to section 179 - The legislature has also recognised, that the doctrine of lifting of veil in the matter of tax dues is to be applied to prevent fraud etc. and not where the company has suffered despite its normal bona fide function. - HC

News: RBI Reference Rate for US $

Notification: Amendment in Notification No. S.O. 3118(E), dated the 3rd October, 2016

Highlight: Discount on ESOP to be allowed as business expenditure u/s 37(1), during the years of vesting on the basis of percentage of vesting during such period, subject to upward or downward adjustment at the time of exercise of option.

Notification: Central Government appoints the 20th September, 2017 as the date on which proviso to clause (87) of section 2 of the Companies Act 2013, shall come into force

Notification: Companies (Restriction on number of layers) Rules, 2017

Highlight: Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additional income disclosure - surrender of income post survey u/s 133A - he disclosure made by the assessee is voluntary in nature, in the revised return - no penalty

Highlight: Reopening of assessment - notice u/s 148 issued on the directions of JCIT / CIT - a perusal of reasons for initiating reassessment proceedings clearly show that they are against the sprit of provisions u/s 147

Highlight: MAT - Adjustment to book profit - computation u/clause (f) of Explanation-1 to section 115JB(2) is to be made without resorting to the computation as contemplated u/s 14A r.w.Rule 8D of I.T. Rules.

Highlight: Addition on account of alleged suppression of service value received - the addition made simply believing the Form 26AS will be an arbitrary exercise of power which cannot be sustained

Notification: Exempts intra state supply of heavy water and nuclear fuels from DAE to NPCIL

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 12/2017-UTT(R) to exempt right to admission to the events organised under FIFA U-17 World Cup 2017

Notification: Seeks to amend notification No. 11/2017- UTT(R) to reduce CGST rate on specified supplies of Works Contract Services

Highlight: Liability to pay duty on import of software - Though no authorization was given by the appellant to DHL, it is an undisputed position that the software has, in fact, been ordered by the appellant and have been delivered to them by DHL - the appellant is to be considered as the importer



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version