Join our webinar on July 24-25 for an in-depth analysis of Union Budget 2024. Learn about tax proposals, sector impacts, and investment insights. Register now!
Join CA Sachin Jain for a live course on Input Tax Credit from a litigation perspective. Gain practical insights and master ITC complexities. Register now!
Hema Hiren Dand vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Merely because the assessee liquidates its investment within a short span of time, which had given better overall earning to the assessee, would not lead to the conclusion that the assessee had no intention to keep on the funds as investor in equity shares
CIT Vs. M/s. Indo Arab Air Services (Delhi High Court) Assessee had escaped assessment for the AY in question. While the AO has referred to the fact that the ED gave information regarding cash deposits being found in the books of the Assessee
Loan given to the Directors was not from the borrowed funds. Therefore, interest liability of the assessee towards the Bank on the borrowing which was taken by the assessee had no bearings because otherwise, the assessee had sufficient funds of its own which the assessee could have advanced
DCIT vs. Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co Ltd (Supreme Court) After going through the detailed order passed by the High Court, we find that the main issue which is involved in this case is not at all addressed by the High Court.
SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 (Listing Regulations) Presently, a private agreement between Stock Exchange and listed company govern all listing obligation and disclosure requirement. This listing agreement like any other agreement among parties creates civil obligation in case of any violation of the agreement. Now, Securities and Exchange Board of India took […]
The Jurisdictional Commissioners of Income Tax are unable to understand specific applicability of Rule 55 of Income Tax Rules, 1962 in connection/relation with each & every Clause of Subsection (2) of Section 288 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,and are blindly rejecting the applications of aspirants opting to become & be Registered Income Tax Practitioners, under a pretext that though the applicant possess the educational qualifications specified u/s 288(2)(v)/(vi), the applicant has not practiced before the Income Tax Authorities for not less than one year on the date of application
ITAT Delhi held In the case of ACIT vs. M/s Command Detective & Securities Pvt. Ltd. that when all the purchases are accounted in the regular books of accounts, it means the source is explained and the provisions of section 69C are not applicable, as there was no unaccounted expenditure.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of ACIT vs. Smt. Divya Jain that the adoption of Fair Market Value of share in lieu of value of sale consideration as declared by the assessee is not valid . There is no provision under the law to include prospective benefit in the ambit of the word income.
Varshaben Sanatbhai Patel vs. ITO (Gujarat High Court) It is settled legal position as held by a catena of decisions that the substratum for formation of belief that income liable to tax has escaped assessment has to form part of the reasons recorded.
DCM Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) AO has neither recorded his satisfaction nor given reasons as to how the claim of expenditure in relation to tax free income has not been correctly made by the assessee as envisaged under section 14A(2).
