Amount Deposited During Demonetization Does Not Call For Addition U/s 69A If Source Of Deposit Was Sufficiently Explained: Rajkot ITAT

Finding that the assessee has explained the details of the earning of the amount which was rightly deposited during the demonetization period, the Rajkot ITAT held that the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) u/s 69A of the Income tax Act is not justified. Section 69A lays down that if, in any financial year, the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery, or...

I-T Authority Fails To Consider Reason For Difference In Sale Consideration & Stamp Duty: Mumbai ITAT Deletes Penalty Levied U/s 270A For Under-Reporting Of Income

Noting that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have taken into consideration the explanation offered by the Assessee during the assessment proceedings in relation to the difference in the sale consideration and the stamp duty valuation of immovable property, the Mumbai ITAT deleted the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Income tax Act for under-reporting of income. The...

Differences In Opinion of Approved Valuer Regarding Fixation Of Value Of Particular Property Can't Be Termed As Concealment: Chennai ITAT Deletes Penalty

The Chennai ITAT held that assessee's claim on the fair market value cannot be termed as concealment of income, if such claim was based on the valuation report of an approved valuer. The Bench of Manjunatha. G (Accountant Member) and Manomohan Das (Judicial Member) observed that “The basis of the assessee's claim is the report of the approved valuer. Further, differences of...

Hyderabad ITAT Grants Additional Opportunity To Taxpayer To Adduce Nature & Source Of Cash Deposits Made During Demonetization

Finding merits in the argument of assessee regarding substantiation of cash deposit during demonetization, the Hyderabad ITAT directed the AO to give one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction regarding the nature and source of the cash deposit of Rs.9,79,000/- during the demonetization period. The Bench of R.K. Panda (Vice-President)...

Mumbai ITAT Confirms Gross Profit Margin @ 12.5% On Alleged Bogus Purchase Since Sales Are Not Disputed: Mumbai ITAT

Finding that the Settlement Commission has not discarded the evidentiary value of the statement of witness (Rajesh Doshi) who has admitted to the modus operandi of availing bogus purchase bill from the assessee, the Mumbai ITAT confirmed the addition made by I-T Authorities on the gross profit margin @ 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchase by assessee. The Bench of...

Merely Making Entries In Books Is Not Sufficient To Discharge Initial Burden Of Proof Regarding Claim Of Cost Of Improvement Of Asset: Chandigarh ITAT

Finding that except for filing copies of so-called invoices of the contractor through whom the work was done, which were also deficient in several respects, no other evidence was filed by the assessee, the Chandigarh ITAT held that the assessee had failed to discharge the initial burden of proof rested on him to substantiate his claim of having incurred expenditure on improvement of...

CIT(A) Shall Not Delete Disallowance Merely By Accepting Taxpayer's Contentions Without Dealing With Findings Of AO: Ahmedabad ITAT

Finding that the CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance merely by accepting the contentions of the assessee before it without dealing with the finding of the AO, the Ahmedabad ITAT directed the CIT(A) to consider the arguments of both the sides before him, i.e. the AO and the assessee, and thereafter adjudicate the issue in accordance with law. The Bench of Annapurna Gupta...

Income Tax Act Doesn't Mandate That Specific Money Deposited In Capital Gain Account Scheme Shall Be Utilized Towards New Investment: Chennai ITAT

The Chennai ITAT held that there is no requirement that specific money as deposited in capital gain account scheme should be utilized towards new investment, and the assessee may make investment from other funds as available with him and the same would not jeopardize the claim of the assessee. Referring to the decision of Sohanlal Mohanlal Bhandari vs. ACIT (104 Taxmann.com 161),...

Only Requirement To Be Fulfilled For Claiming Expenses U/s 57(Iii) Is That They Must Be Incurred Wholly For Earning Income From Other Sources: Ahmedabad ITAT

The Ahmedabad ITAT held that in the absence of the Assessing Officer pointing out as to how despite the assessee's explanation, there was no nexus between the interest-bearing funds and their utilization for making advances for earning interest income, no disallowance u/s 57(iii) of the Income tax Act was tenable. The ITAT explained that the only requirement to be fulfilled for...

Failure To Record Satisfaction Before Initiating Penalty U/s 271(1)(C) In Gross Violation Of CBDT Circular, Vitiates Penalty Order: Chennai ITAT

The Chennai ITAT clarified that the Assessing Officer has to record his satisfaction before initiating penalty under section 271D of the Income tax Act in respect of violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. As per the provision of Section 269SS, the assessee had to explain the bonafide or genuineness of the cash transaction towards payment of interest in cash, added...

AO Can Make Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/s 68 Only In Previous Year In Which Such Cash Credit Was Made And Assessee Fails To Explain Same: Mumbai ITAT

The Mumbai ITAT clarified that as per the provisions of Section 68 of the Income tax Act, the Assessing Officer is required to make addition of unexplained cash credit only in the previous year in which such cash credit has been made and the assessee is not in a position to offer satisfactory explanation relating thereto. The Bench of Vikas Awasthy (Judicial Member) and...

If Employees' Contributions Are Not Paid Within Due Dates Specified Under PF Act, Then Employer Is Not Entitled To Deduction U/s 36(1)(Va): Bangalore ITAT

The Bangalore ITAT reiterated that the distinction between an employer's contribution which is its primary liability under law, in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it is crucial. The former forms part of the employers' income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit deemed), by virtue of Section 2(24)(x)...