In the present case by virtue of independent documents as referred in paper book the assessee has proved the genuineness of the share transaction and there was no justification to disallow the claim of the assessee in respect of long term capital gain merely on the basis of information received from DDIT which is based on admission of Shri Mukesh Chokshi.
Legal position as propounded by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Trishul Investments Ltd (supra) supports the plea of the assessee that interest paid for acquisition of the shares would partake the character of cost of shares and, therefore, assessee had rightly capitalized the interest along with the cost of acquisition for the purpose of computing capital gains.
The procedure for refund of tax deducted at source under section 195 of the Income tax Act, 1961, to the person deducting the tax is delineated in CBDT Circular No. 7/2007 dated 23.10.2007. Circular No. 7/2007 states that no interest under section 244A of the Act, is admissible on refunds to be granted in accordance with the circular or on the refunds already granted in accordance with Circular No. 769 or Circular 790 dated 20.4.2000.
It is a settled position that period of limitation of penalty proceedings under section 271D and 271E of the Act is governed by the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the limitation period for the imposition of penalty under these provisions would be the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later.
It has been brought to notice of CBDT that there are conflicting interpretations of various High Courts on the issue whether the limitation for imposition of penalty under sections 271D and 271E of the Income tax Act, 1961commences at the level of the Assessing Officer (below the rank of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.) or at level of the Range authority i.e. the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax./Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax.
Admittedly, when the assessee was confronted with the depreciation being claimed on the property, the income from which had been returned under the head income from house property, it immediately realized its mistake of computation of total income and agreed for the addition to its total income.
Assessee could collect various evidences only after passing of the assessment order. According to the assessee, these additional evidences are vital documents which are required to be considered in order to adjudicate the issue in a judicious manner.
Board had specified the following categories of cases which can be transferred to the Call Book, namely, i. Cases in which the department has gone in appeal to the appropriate authority, ii. Cases where injunction has been issued by Supreme Court/ High Court/ CEGAT, etc. iii. Cases where audit objections are contested. (stands rescinded vide Circular No. 1023/11/2016-CX, dated 8.4.2016)
The applicant who desires to avail the waiver under this Act with respect to the arrears in dispute shall withdraw the appeals pending before the appellate authority or Tribunal or, as the case may be, before the Court on or before the 30th September 2016:
Amendments to SCPT Act, PT Act, Entry Tax Act, MVAT Act – Where all the returns for the period commencing on or after the 1st April 2012 are filed by a registered dealer for any year within the period for filing revised return under clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 20 and if the taxes as per these returns has also been paid within the said period and if the Commissioner is satisfied that the returns furnished by such dealer are correct and complete, he may assess the amount of tax due from such dealer on the basis of such returns :
