Office Order No. 38/2019Consequent upon the appointment of Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey and Shri Sandeep Mohan Bhatnagar as Members in CBIC, it has been decided with the approval of the Competent Authority, to allocate charges of Members of Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs as under until further orders:-
Basic requirement of reopening of assessment is ‘reason to believe’ that the income has escaped assessment without which reopening under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is is not sustainable
Sale of Agricultural Land by the assessee was not ‘adventure in the nature of trade’ and therefore, profit earned on such sales cannot be taxed as business income.
The channel of movement of the fund, the source of the fund, purpose of investment and the ultimate destination of the fund, were all part of the record during the assessment proceedings. There is nothing in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer to suggest that, such investment is bogus.
Where property held by assessee was encumbered and, thus, she was not absolute owner of property, while computing capital gain arising from transfer of such a property, market value of property as taken for purpose of payment of stamp duty could not be adopted as sale consideration by applying provisions of section 50C.
DCIT Vs Morgan Stanley (I) Capital (P) Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Where there was any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as to taxability of any item or nature of payments falling under various TDS provisions, assessee could be declared to be an assessee-in- default under section 201, however, no disallowance could be made […]
Income derived by assessee from leave and licence fee was to be treated as income from house property not as business income as assessee company’s primary object was not to construct, develop and lease property out for earning rental income but to engage itself as real estate developer.
Assessee was not entitled to claim exemption from capital gains on transfer of rural agricultural land as State Government had notified the said land for establishing industrial park and consequently, the land had become non-agricultural urban land.
Framing of an assessment against a non-existent amalgamating entity was not procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional defect not covered under section 292B, therefore, assessment made by AO was nullity in the eyes of law and the same was liable to be quashed.
In present case there are evidences and material to show that the shareholder company was only a paper company having no source of income, but had made substantial and huge investment in the form of share application money.
