Total Pageviews

Monday 26 October 2015

SLP admitted by supreme court against order of Karnatka High Court in Islamic Academy of Education[2015] 54 taxmann.com 255 (Karnataka) SEPTEMBER 9, 2014 where in it was held that where trust is genuine and activities are being carried out in accordance with objects, registration of the Trust can not be cancelled on the ground that funds are being misappropriated or that accounts are being falsified although exemption u/s 11 may be denied- Islamic Academy of Education [2015] 62 taxmann.com 218 (SC)


The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 19.12.2011 in the case of CIT Vs. Mother dairy India Ltd. ITA No.1925/2010 and ITA 313/d011 held in para-12 to para 15 of it’s judgment…In the cases before us, the concessionaire becomes the owner of the milk and the products on taking delivery of the same from the Dairy. He thus purchased the milk and the products from the Dairy and sold them at the MRP. The difference between the MRP and the price which he pays to the Dairy is his income from business. It cannot be categorized as commission. The loss and gain is of the concessionaire. The Dairy may have fixed the MRP and the price at which they sell the products to the concessionaire but the products are sold and ownership vests and is transferred to the concessionaires. The sale is subject to conditions, and stipulations. This by itself does not show and establish principal and agent relationship. The supervision and control required in case of agency is missing Followed by ITAT Kolkata in M/S.Metro Diary Limited ITA Nos.852 & 853/Kol/2013 on the issue of TDS on Commission u/s 194H.


Penalty u/s 269SS held to be not leviable where , the assessee a reputed dealer in fast moving goods in order to get encashed the cheques issued to various companies, accepted the cash in his bank account from various persons also soon repaid the same . The assessee did not use the CC limit to save interest cost. – Amar Nath [05-10-2015] High Cour of Himachal Pradesh ITA 4014/2013 Case laws relied upon: Asstt. Director of Inspection Investigation v. A.B. Shanthi, (2002) 6 SCC 259 Hindustan Steel Ltd. V. State of Orissa, (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC); CIT v. Kharaiti Lal and Co., (2004) 270 ITR445 (P&H); CIT v. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog, (2008) 302ITR 201 (Raj); CIT v. Lakshmi Trust Co., (2008) 303 ITR 99 (Mad); CIT v. Indore Plastics P. Ltd., (2003) 262 ITR 163(MP); CIT v. Idhayam Publications Ltd., (2006) 285 ITR 221 (Mad); CIT v. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd.,(1988) 172 ITR 321 (SC); CIT v. Balaji Traders, (2008) 303 ITR 312 (Mad); CIT v. Kundrathur Finance and Chit Co.,(2006) 283 ITR 329 (Mad); and CIT v. Ratna Agencies,(2006) 284 ITR 609 (Mad


The presumption under section 44AE can not be applied in a case where income in books of accounts is reflected at higher figure than presumptive income. In present case, the assessee reflected higher income in books but lower income was reflected in the return . Calcutta High Court in Jasvinder Singh vs. CIT ITA 484/2005 [29-09-2015] held that higher income to be reflected by the assessee.


Cash found in the course of survey—Assessee stating that cash of their other concerns were also with the assessee at the time of search—There is no finding that the cash balance shown in the cash book was not with the assessee or the cash balances were used by those concerns for some other purpose—Such evidence cannot be rejected merely on the basis of presumption—Addition deleted-CHAWLA BROTHERS (P) LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2011) 43 SOT 0651


Survey party compared the physical stock found with figures of RG-1 register maintained by the assessee in which discrepancies with physical inventory were found—AO made the addition of Rs. 5,58,54,128 on account of unexplained investment in stock—Appraisal report prepared at the time of survey party is valuable information to reject books of account but same is not a final assessment but it is of assistance in making assessment—Merely on the basis that at the time of survey, some differences were found in stock that does not mean that there will be an automatic addition on account of differences—AO and CIT(A) both have failed to point out how the reconciliation submitted by the assessee was incorrect—Such differences are always subject to explanation and reconciliation—Assessee has reconciled the differences with reasons and the Revenue authorities did not point out anything contrary that how the reconciliation done by the assessee was incorrect—Addition cannot be made unless it is found that the stock was sold out of books of account, hence same can not be sustained-CHAWLA BROTHERS (P) LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2011) 43 SOT 0651


Where the jeweler during the course of survey in his statement explained about some jewellery regarding which bills was no received. However at the time of filing of return , some more jewellery was claimed to have been received at the time of survey against which the bills was not received. The ITAT held that had this story been true it would not have slipped while giving statement during the course of survey-Radhakrishna Gold Jewellary (P.) Ltd. MAY 26, 2015 [2015] 62 taxmann.com 182 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)