Held that tax effect in the departmental appeal is less than Rs. 50 Lakhs as revised vide circular dated 08/08/2019. Appeal rejected.
Held that broker pledged the shares of the clients with banks for obtaining bank finance. It is not justified to take value of shares pledged as undisclosed investment of the broker.
Held that the payment towards CAM charges are in the nature of contractual payment which are made for availing services/ facilities. Accordingly, TDS is deductible u/s. 194C
Partition or family settlement is not transfer. When there is no transfer there is no capital gain and consequently no tax on capital gain is liable to be paid.
Held that the assessee can take shelter and claim deduction u/s 54 only when the assessee invests the long term capital gain in purchase or construction of a single residential house.
Held that the Revenue is bound by the resolution plan as accepted by the NCLT and not entitled to anything more than what is provided therein.
Held that assessee failed to provide details of calculation of the Performance Related Pay; also failed to prove the authority to pay the Performance Related Pay to the employees hence claim of Performance Related Pay is unsustainable
Held that when there is an appeal remedy available under Section 107, it is the settled proposition that, writ petition cannot be filed by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction. Petitioner can file an appeal before the Appellate Authority and file a condone delay petition stating the Covid-19 situation.
Held that the department has failed to issue notice, failed to report the reasons for reopening the case and also failed to take the approval of the appropriate authority before as initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T. Act. Appeal allowed on technical ground.
Held that assessee submitted the records. Hence, the assessee has discharged his initial burden and the burden shifts on the assessing officer to enquire further into the matter which he failed to do.
