Issuance of notice under section 153C is mandatory and a condition precedent for taking action against assessee under section 153C, therefore, assessment order under section 153C issued without issuing a notice under section 153C was bad in law.
M/s. Neha Home Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Since assessee was neither the beneficial nor the registered shareholder of the company, the amount so received is not liable to be taxed as deemed dividend. Moreover, the transaction between two group concerns were in the nature of current account and inter banking account containing […]
ince CIT(A) had erred in dismissing appeal filed manually by assessee. CIT(A) was directed to admit appeal filed by assessee by directing assessee to file its appeal in electronic format and also to condone delay
Portfolio management fees and performance linked fees were paid by assessee to his portfolio manager, towards service charges for making investments of his funds and managing portfolio of securities, therefore, same not being an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the shares, had rightly been held by AO as not allowable as a deduction under section 48.
Sunshine Metals & Alloys Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 68 Bogus share capital- Assessee has furnished the Name, Address, PAN no and Share Application Form to prove that the shares were allotted to the applicants. The assessee has also furnished its bank statement to show that the money was received through banking channels and there […]
ITO Vs Sudarshan R. Kharbanda (ITAT Mumbai) If the aforementioned judicial pronouncements and the facts available on record are kept in juxtaposition and analyzed with the assembling of parts done by the assessee, we find that the resultant end product is commercially known differently in the trading world, therefore, certainly it can be said that […]
Claim for deduction under section 35(2AB) could not be defeated on the ground that approval from prescribed authority was granted in the year subsequent to the financial year in which the expenditure was incurred.
In the present cases on hand, the request made by the writ petitioner had been complied with and the reasons for reopening of the escaped assessment had been communicated to the writ petitioner. The said propositions are very well recognised by the Supreme Court of India in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Thus the very provision stating that the Assessing Officer should record the reasons does not mean that the same should be communicated along with the notice itself.
Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd Vs JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) So far as the penalty proceedings are concerned, the assessee has made out a prima facie case in favour of the assessee proving that the outcome of the appeal before ITAT will directly impact the proceedings which are hurriedly being finalized by the authorities below, which may […]
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has notified the insertion of the item ‘Quadricycle’ as a ‘non transport’ vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
