N K GOEL AND BROS.

Bogus sales and purchases: Reliance on statement of supplier who confesses to providing accommodation entries without giving assessee right of cross-examination violates principles of natural justice and the addition has to be deleted in toto (i) The assessment was reopened on the basis of the statement of Shri Hiten L. Rawal, the proprietor of M/s Zalak Impex. In this statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, Shri Rawal confessed to have provided accommodation entries in the form of sales and purchases, to various parties. The assessee was stated to have obtained bills for non-existing parties, amounting to Rs. 4,09,12,718, during the year under consideration. It remains undisputed that the assessee was never provided any opportunity to cross examine Shri Hiten L. Rawal, though he specifically asked for such cross examination. On the other hand, the burden was sought to be shifted on the assessee by the A.O., by asking him to produce Shri Rawal, even though it was the A....

S. 41(1)/ 68: Unclaimed liabilities to creditors, even if fictitious and bogus, cannot be assessed u/s 41(1) in the absence of a write-back. The bogus credits can be assessed u/s 68 only in the year the credits were made and not in the year they are found to be not payable Applying the ratio in the cases mentioned supra, the amount in question cannot be brought to tax in the year under appeal under the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act. It is trite law that an addition under Section 68 can be made only in the year in which credit was made to the account of the creditors in the books of account maintained. Admittedly, in this case the credit to the account of creditors was made in the earlier years and therefore, the amount even cannot be brought to tax under Section 68 in the year under appeal. However, it is open to the Department to levy tax on such amount by resorting to the remedies available under the provisions of Act by duly following the procedure known to the law for PDF ...

IT : Long-term capital loss of sale of equity shares attracting STT is allowed to be set off against long term capital gain on sale of land in accordance with section 70(3) • Section 10(38) excludes in expressed terms only the income arising from transfer of Long term capital asset being equity share or equity fund which is chargeable to STT and not entire source of income from capital gains arising from transfer of shares. • It does not lead to exclusion of computation of capital gain of Long term capital asset or Short term capital asset being shares. • Accordingly, Long term capital loss on sale of shares would be allowed to be set off against Long term capital gain on sale of land in accordance with section 70(3). ■■■ [2015] 58 taxmann.com 115 (Mumbai - Trib.) IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH 'D' Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Amit Shukla, JUDICIAL MEM...