In the case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Soni Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur bench of ITAT have held that that in case of share capital, the creditworthiness along with genuineness of transaction, identity of person is also required to be proved by the assessee.
The Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 had provided for the setting up of a NCLT and Appellate Tribunal to replace the existing Company Law Board and Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. NCLT would be dealing in various matters pertaining to winding up of Companies, Revival and Restructuring which presently hitherto falls under the jurisdiction of High Court and BIFR respectively.
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of ACIT vs. M/s Public Rose Shiksha Samiti that on verification of the total receipt mentioned by the Assessing Officer , there was a transaction of sale of land for Rs. 47,90,000/-. The Hon’ble Madras High Court has considered the issue of annual receipts
Punjab & Haryana High Court held in CIT(A) Vs M/s Rashtriya Vikas party that for passing any order reasons for conclusions should be given accompanying that order then only that order would be considered as complete order.
In the case of ACE India Medical Systems Vs. ACIT Jaipur Bench of ITAT held that from the bare reading of the section 43 (5) (d) it is prima facie clear that Section 43(5)(d) is for trading in derivatives not trading of shares.
ITAT Mumbai has held in the case of ACIT vs. Tristar Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ltd. That Reliance on statement of supplier who confesses to providing accommodation entries without giving assessee right of cross-examination violates principles of natural justice.
The dispute as to classification of goods and as to whether or not they are covered by exemption Notification relates directly and proximately to the rate of duty applicable thereto for the purposes of assessment.
Position that interest can be charged pursuant to proceedings in normal course up to the date of decision u/s 245D(1) of the Income Tax Act to proceed with the application appears to be prevailing.
It is only vide the Finance Act, 2002 which came into effect from 1st April, 2003 the said capital receipt was now taxable under section 28(va). It is clarified by the Supreme Court that section 28(va) of the Act was amendatory and not clarificatory
Section 43B does not contemplate liability to pay the service tax before actual receipt of the funds in the account of the assesee. Liability to pay service tax into the treasury will arise only upon the assessee receiving the funds and not otherwise.
