It is held that transaction within the family and close relative are covered by the proviso to section 56(2)(viii)(c) and there is no application of the said section for taxing the income under the head ‘Income from other sources’. The provisions of s. 56(2)(viii)(c)(ii) shall not apply in case of money or any property received from any close relative.
The assessee operates as a global services advisory and research company. Assessee assists corporations in developing and implementing leading edge sourcing strategies including captive outsourced and shared services approaches.
Vanditbhai Rajendrakumar Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Facts- The brief facts of the case were that as per AIR information, the Ld. Assessing Officer came know that the assessee had received cash deposits of Rs. 25,21,100/-in saving bank account maintained with Corporation Bank. To verify cash deposits, letter dated 10-02-2017 was served on the assessee, […]
M. S. Paulose Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) Facts- The suit was instituted by the petitioners and some other persons, praying for a decree of declaration that St. Johns Besphage Orthodox Syrian Church, Pulinthanam is a constituent parish Church of Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and to declare that the plaint schedule church is […]
Faizan Texturising Vs C.C.E. Bharuch (CESTAT Ahmedabad) Facts-The appellant is a 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Texturised Yarn and Polyester Twisted Yarn. Their factory was visited by the officers on 21.04.2003, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result, shortage of 7618 kg. imported raw material viz. “Bright Polyester Spin Draw […]
Augustan Textile Colours Limited Vs Director of Industries and Anr. (Supreme Court of India) Facts-The issue to be considered here is whether the benefit of tax exemption in respect of works contract granted in the process of revival of the industry, under the relevant provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 based on the […]
In the present case we find that the entire addition is on the basis of some investigation report, the relevant portions of which is also not cited in the show cause or the assessment order, there is nothing against the assessee and no inquiry whatsoever has been done by the AO or the Ld CIT (A).
Voltas Limited Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Facts- Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of air conditioning and refrigeration etc. During the A.Y. 2015-16, petitioner incurred expenses of Rs.3,30,82,713 towards CSR as per section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. Petitioner had also claimed deduction in return of income u/s 35AC and 80G […]
We find there are different judicial forums who has held that high consumption of electricity by itself not a ground to infer suppression of production. The onus is on the department to prove allegation of clandestine removal with positive and concrete evidence.
In the present case, the main reason for treating the land as non-agricultural is that the land was converted for usage of non-agricultural purposes. However, the assessee filed revenue records wherein it is stated that the land still continued to be agricultural land wherein crops like Ragi & Paddy were cultivated by the assessee.
