Join us on 8th Dec for a live webinar on GST and corporate guarantees. Learn valuation, co-guarantor liability, cross-border impacts, and practical examples.
Simplify GST learning with memory techniques. Join live sessions, master CGST sections, and retain knowledge effortlessly. Register now for practical GST mastery!
In the case of Pespsi Foods Pvt Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of income Tax, (Delhi High Court) has held that third proviso to section 254 (2A) through the insertion of the expression – ‘even if the delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee’– by virtue of the Finance Act, 2008
In the case of Asst Shri Ashokkumar Bhailal v Income Tax Officer, ITAT Ahmedabad has held that addition made on basis of witness statements, without giving assessee an opportunity to cross examine the witness and without collaborating other independent evidence is not sustainable in law.
The Assessee sold immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs.13,70,000/-. The stamp duty valuation price was Rs.17,90,085/-. Accordingly AO invoking the provision of section 50C made addition on account of short-term capital gain.
In the balance sheet of the assessee, A.O. noted that there was a term loan of Rs.7,58,09,730/- from Axis Bank. Further the assessee has invested in fully paid equity shares of Pollen Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.6 crores.
The AO initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and sustained the penalty in respect of addition made due to provision for sundry debtors and provision for suspense.
The present appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made u/s 35D in respect of expenditure incurred related to issue of shares and computation of book profit u/s 115JB.
In the instant case, the assessee has sold 71233 shares for Rs.3.33 crore under the buy-back scheme. This sale consideration comprises Rs.1.06 crore as interest. The assessee calculated the capital gain considering the total receipt of Rs.3.33 crore as value of sale consideration while the A.O. taxed Rs.1.06 crore as income from other sources which was confirmed by the Tribunal.
HC held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount not being bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified.
The ITAT bench of Panaji in the case of Sesa Resources Limited held that the disallowance under Sec 14A read with rule 8D can be made only in respect of investments which are earning income exempt from tax and not the total investments.
In the case of CCE v M/s Gujarat Maritime Board Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no service tax will be levied if the amount is collected under the wharfage charges which is prescribed under the Statute and doesn’t come under the ‘Port Services.
