The Draft Bank Branch Auditors’ Panel of Chartered Accountants/firms for the year 2019-20 has been hosted at www.meficai.org for indicating the category of the applicants of Multipurpose Empanelment Form for the year 2019-20.
Since both the nature & source of the share application received was fully explained by assessee thus, assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants and addition made by AO u/s 68 was based on conjectures and surmises which could not be justified.
Both assessment and the penalty order do not specify as to on which limb the AO intends to impose penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act either for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.
Commissioner ought not to have delegated his powers of provisional attachment of the immovable property under Section 83 to the Assistant Commissioner, therefore, the order of provisional attachment passed by the Assistant Commissioner was hereby quashed and set aside.
Central Government appoints 01.04.2020 instead of 9 day of January, 2020, as the date on which the provisions of Part I of Chapter IV related to Amendments to Indian Stamp Act, 1899 which were notified by Finance Act, 2019 (7 of 2019). MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 8th January, 2020 […]
The issue under consideration is whether the CIT(A) is correct in confirming the addition while treating the compensation received for relinquishment of right to sue as taxable business income & accordingly considered it as revenue receipt as against the capital receipt?
Additional income disclosed to the tune of Rs. 12 Crore by assessee during the course of proceedings before the Commission was just and proper and Commission was right in considering the revised offer made by assessee during the course of the proceedings in the nature of spirit of settlement.
The issue under consideration is whether the re-opening of assessement u/s 147 is justified in law?
Many times reference has been sought regarding the question whether inaugural expenses incurred by a person are deductible under section 37(1) or not while computing the profits & gains from business or profession (of that person).
AO was not justified in treating assessee’s transaction of purchase of agricultural land from his wife as colorable device to avoid the legitimate payment of tax on mere difference between purchase price declared by assessee vis-a-vis Jantri Value as assessee had discharged his primary onus by furnishing the necessary details to justify the cost of acquisition and now the onus was on the Revenue to bring on record the details of the cases to justify the actual prevailing market rate at the time of the purchase of land by assessee.
