Umacharan Shaw & Bros v. CIT: (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC)- there was no material on which the Income-tax Officer could come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine and further observed that the conclusion is the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in these matters.
In our opinion, the Tribunal had, on merits, come to the conclusion that the gifts were genuine. This is a pure question of fact. The Tribunal has examined the evidence which was available on the record and has arrived at the aforesaid finding.
Jindal Photo Films Ltd. vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) 1998 234 ITR 170- Following the settled trend of judicial opinion and the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court time and again, different High Courts of the country have taken the view that if an expenditure
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Sudhir Budhraja that the findings of the Tribunal are based on sufficient material and cannot be stated to be perverse. On the other hand that the AO had no material
Delhi High Court held In the case of Turner Broadcasting Systems Asia Pacific INC. vs. DDIT that the assessing officer has merely intended to revisit the concluded assessments and it is a clear case of change of opinion
ITAT Pune held in Mrs Sarita Manjeet Singh Chopra Vs ITO that if the assesse had disclosed its unaccounted income filing return u/s 153A only after it was caught in search by the income tax department then that disclosed income through return would be considered as undisclosed income
It has been observed that the abridged prospectus has become voluminous and thereby defeats the very purpose of abridged prospectus.
Kerala High Court held In the case of Flipkart Internet (P.) Ltd. vs. State of Kerala that It is well settled that show cause notices issued by statutory authorities particularly in case of imposition of penalty on an assessee, cannot pre-determine the guilt of an assessee.
CS Santosh Pandey As per the provision of Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013- No Company shall directly or indirectly give loan to any of its directors or any other person in whom the director is interested, or provide any guarantee or security in connection with the loan taken by him or other person. […]
CBDT constituted Accounting Standard Committee in 2010.The committee has submitted its final report in August 2012. And on March 31st 2015 i.e. after two years, 10 Income Computation & Disclosure Standards (‘ICDS’) notified by the CBDT under section 145(2) of the income tax act 1961(the act) vide ‘notification No. 32/2015 [F.NO.134/48/2010-TPL]/SO 892(E) Dated 31 March 2015 and committee recommended the nomenclature of Tax Accounting Standards for the standards notified u/s 145(2). Since this standard are meant to be adopted for computation of income. Hence section 145(2) as amended refers to Income Computation and Disclosure Standards.
