Where there was an option under Rule 11UA(2) to determine the FMV by either the ‘DCF Method’ or the ‘NAV Method’, AO had no jurisdiction to discard the valuation report of the CA mainly on the ground that valuation of equity shares carried out by assessee was based on projection of revenue which did not match with the actual revenues of the subsequent years. Moreover, top and independent investors had invested in assessee’s start-up proved that the FMV as determined by assessee was proper.
While on search nothing adverse was found so as to prove that documents filed during original assessment proceedings were false or untrue, AO on same set of material could not take a different view than already taken at the time of original assessment merely because a search had taken place.
The Court also requests the learned ASG to arrange a meeting in her chamber, at least one week prior to the next date of hearing, of the lawyers appearing on behalf of the Petitioner with the Senior Vice President Of the GSTN and an officer of the level of Additional Secretary in the Department concerned, so that there could be a meaningful interaction with a view to mitigating/ eliminating the outstanding issues.
The issue under consideration is whether the Tribunal is correct in upholding the decision of CIT(A) for deleting the addition made under section 68 of the Act?
The Government is continuously taking several initiatives to enhance the technology back bone of the Income Tax Department (ITD). ITD is having a dedicated directorate called ‘Directorate of System’ which handles the technology aspects of the various functions of the Department. A brief highlight of the technological developments which are being currently implemented include Centralised […]
Excel / Java Utility for ITR 1, ITR 2, ITR 3, ITR 4, ITR 5, ITR 6 & ITR 7 for AY 2019-20 / FY 2018-19 are available for e-Filing. Update on 08/07/2019 All Income Tax Return Preparation Software for AY 2019-20 are now available for e-Filing. Update on 04.06.2019 ITR 7 For persons including […]
Where TPO was not convinced with the benchmarking of international transaction of assessee, he should have independently benchmarked the arm’s length price of royalty payment by adopting any one of the prescribed methods which he had failed to do and determined arm’s length price at nil on purely ad–hoc basis without assigning any valid and acceptable reason, therefore, the addition made on account of adjustment made to the arm’s length price of royalty payment was to be deleted.
Where land was stock in trade in the books of account, but, there was a complete bar on assessee as per the Notification of the Ministry of Defence to raise any construction or to do any business activity therein, the land in question could not not be treated as stock in trade but as a capital asset in nature determining holding period from the date of acquisition.
Tata Communications Ltd. Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: Once a notice under subsection (2) of Section 143 was issued, the suspension of the refund arising out of the return filed by assessee would not be automatic till the passing of the order of assessment under sub-section (3) of Section 143. Instead AO to take […]
Where employer had incurred genuine expenditure for the welfare and the benefit of the employees, contributions to unapproved and unrecognized funds had to be allowed as a deduction.
