Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 758 - ITAT INDORE

2016 (9) TMI 758 - ITAT INDORE - TMI - Addition made on account of investment in FDRs and interest thereupon - Held that:- We find that the ld. CIT(A) has verified the claim of the assessee and found that the FDRs disclosed by the family members and as found during the course of survey were not matching. As the numbers as well amount mentioned in the FDRs were different, nor the assessee was able to get verified the same with documentary evidence during the course of appellate proceedings before .....

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 against assessee. - Penalty levied for non-fulfillment some dealership condition - allowable expenditure u/s 37 - Held that:- Since the penalty is levied by HPCL for non-fulfillment of some dealership condition falls within the purview of business expenditure, hence the same is allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee has also placed reliance in this regard in the case of Gold Crest Capital Markets Limited vs. ITO, (2009 (1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r The Appellant : Shri K.C.Agrawal, CA For The Respondent : Shri Rajeev Varshaney, CIT DR ORDER PER O.P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMEBR. These three appeals are filed by the assessee against the consolidated order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Indore [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] dated 20.08.2014 and pertains to assessment year 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 as against appeals decided in order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of Incometax Act, 1961, dated 28.12 2007 of ACIT, 3(1), Indore .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

prayed that the amount may kindly be directed to be deleted. I.T.(SS)A.No. 283/Ind/2014 - A.Y. 2002-03 : On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A)-II, Indore, has erred in maintaining the addition made on account of investment in FDRs and interest thereupon at ₹ 1,00,867/- and ₹ 5,037/- respectively, by treating the same as unexplained, whereas all the FDRs were in the name of family members of the appellant and hence, it is prayed that the amount may kindly .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the case, the ld. CIA(A)-II, Indore, erred in maintaining the disallowance of levy of penalty at ₹ 5,000/-,which was levied by the principal M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for some violation of their norms, which was a routine business expenditure and thus, it is prayed that the disallowance so made may kindly be directed to be allowed in full. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was carried out on 25th August, 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

structions and M/s.Surya Builders & interest income from deposits with Bank and others. Survey u/s 133A was also carried out simultaneously alognwith search at the business premises of the assessee group, wherein some FDRs were found of which photocopies were impounded from the business premises of M/s. Alankar Enterprises and Saakar Infrastructure Private Limited vide page nos. 70 to 76 of BS-4. The findings of AO with regard to such FDRs with reference to relevant assessment year is reprod .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

356/- 4. Pitamber Wadhwani & Miss Charu 08-10-2001 47,685/- 5. Pitamber Wadhwani & Miss Charu 09-10-2001 28,215/- 6. Pitamber Wadhwani and Amarlal 08-10-2001 24,967/- Total 1,63,510/- A.Y. 2003-04 : Sr. Name of holder Date Amount 1. Pitambar Wadhwani & Miss Charu 02-02.2001 18,453/- 2. Pitambar Wadhwani & Begraj Wadhwani 02-02.2001 25,834/- 3. Pitambar Wadhwani, Begraj Wadhwani and Amarlal 02-02-2001 18,356/- 4. Pitamber Wadhwani & Miss Charu 08-10-2001 47,685/- 5. Pitamber W .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gular books of accounts. Keeping in view these facts an amount of interest @120/0 for six month = ₹ 6.052/- is added in the income of the assessee. Similarly an amount of ₹ 7,517/- ₹ 2.480/- (as shown in statement of affairs) = ₹ 5,037/- @ 12% on FDRs purchased during the AY 2001-02. Total addition on this account is ₹ 13,569/-. Above mentioned FDRs are claimed to have been made out of undisclosed income of the assessee, which has not been accounted for in his regul .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aru Wadhwani is daughter of the assessee and apparently does not has any source of income which means that source for making these FDRs is from the income of the assessee. These FDRs are not accounted for in the regular books of the assessee including Statement of affairs filed in the records. In view of these facts and circumstances and provisions of section 68, this amount of Rs.l,00,867/- is hereby added to the income of the assessee. Above mentioned FDRs are claimed to have been made out of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

graj Wadhwani do not bear the same FDR number nor it is of such amount. Hence, the FDRs disclosed by Shri Begraj Wadhwani was different and do not explain these FDRs. The assessee has also failed to prove the same whether these FDRs were duly reflected in the return of the assessee or his family members. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee is the active earning member of the three holders of FDRs, hence, the addition of such unaccounted investment is correctly made in the assessee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e FDRs standing in the name of various respective family members are disclosed by the respective family members and hence the same cannot be added in the hands of the assessee. 6. We have considered the facts and materials available on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has verified the claim of the assessee and found that the FDRs disclosed by the family members and as found during the course of survey were not matching. As the numbers as well amount mentioned in the FDRs were different, nor t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

In view of these facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities. Hence, the appeals of the assessee for all the three assessment years on this ground is rejected. 8. Ground no.2 for assessment year 2003-04 relates to maintaining the disallowance of levy of penalty of ₹ 5,000/-, which was levied by the Principal, M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for violation of their norms. 9. We have considered the facts and materials available on r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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