Held that the interest income in question is required to be taxed at 10% in terms of the provisions of Article 11(2) of the India-Japan DTAA
Held that addition made on estimated basis, without rejecting books of accounts of the assessee, is unsustainable in law
Held that the explanation of the source of these very small loans as given by friends of the assessee to help him in his share trading transactions, and which has been confirmed by two parties, cannot be dismissed as unbelievable.
Delhi High Court admitted a petition through which two adjudication orders based on a single show cause notice was challenged. Also held that no coercive measures will be taken against the petitioners, in pursuance of the aforementioned adjudication orders.
Held that the department cannot proceed against a person found liable to prosecute him for the offence under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without sanction under section 278B.
Held that merely because the assessee is referred as a contractor in the agreement, it doesn’t detract the assessee from the position of being a developer, nor will deprive the assessee from claiming deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act.
Held that identity of the donors as provided u/s 115BBC of the Act has been established by the assessee. Accordingly, the donations cannot be categorized as anonymous donations and cannot be subjected to tax.
Held that for invoking revisionary power u/s 263 it is necessary to point out the error in the order and that too such an error should be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue
Held that as identity and creditworthiness of the investors is established, merely because of delay in transferring of the shares to the prospective investors, the amount cannot be treated as unexplained investment u/s 68.
Held that a residential house for the purpose of section 54F(1) deduction can indeed cover multiple units in same or different towers or residential blocks
