Director Identification Numbers (DINs) of assesses-director allotted under Rule 10 of the Companies (Appointments and Qualifications of Directors) Rules, 2014, were not liable to be deactivated or cancelled solely for the reason that assesses-director stood disqualified for appointment / reappointment as Directors of Companies by operation of Section 164(2).
All the interest bearing funds had been utilized towards interest bearing advances and this was evident from the balance sheet whereby interest bearing loan was Rs. 3,03,50,275 against which, interest bearing advances were Rs. 3,41,00,000 i.e. more than the amount borrowed. No disallowance could be made under section 36(1)(iii) as the amount borrowed on interest had been used specifically and exclusively for advancing amounts of interest for the purposes of earning income.
Since AS-11 was mandatory and required to be followed in computing the income, therefore, assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on forex loss pertained to non-depreciable asset acquired in India as loss from income.
As the law required that an enquiry be held under Section 202 of the Code if the accused stayed outside the Court’s jurisdiction, such enquiry had to be undertaken in clear terms and the Trial Court, after making such enquiry whether by taking evidence on affidavit or by restricting the enquiry to examination of documents or not, was required to decide whether there were sufficient grounds to issue process against the accused.
While recording of the reasons to reopen an assessment, AO was required to form only prima Facie opinions about escapement of income as he was not making an assessment but taking a first baby step for making the assessment by forming a reasonable belief that whether the claim of assessee should be tested in reassessment proceedings or not. Thus, there was no infirmity in the action of AO that reasoned escapement of income by claiming deduction of Rs. 1 crore u/s 54EC.
Revenue ought to have brought evidence on record by bringing comparative quotations to prove the fact that the lease rent paid in the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs per month to the trustees was excessive or unreasonable and beyond the fair market value thereon. Since ssessee placed on record that the market value of the land was Rs.13,03,76,400/- as per the registered lease deed and the payment of lease rent of Rs.24 lakhs works out to hardly 1.86% thereon. Hence, it could be safely concluded that the rent paid by assessee-trust to the trustees was not excessive or unreasonable.
Competition Commission of India had allowed to investigate against Flipkart and Amazon for alleged involvement in Anti-competitive Agreements. An order directing investigation be supported by ‘some reasoning’ (CCI Vs. SAIL para 97), which the Commission had fulfilled. Therefore, it would be unwise to prejudge the issues raised by Amazon and Flipkart in these writ petitions at this stage and scuttle the investigation.
everting to the CUP method applied by assessee as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the SDT of rent payment, assessee had given a comparable instance of rent paid @ Rs.112 per sq.ft. by ICICI bank under a lease agreement dated 17.02.2012 for a nearby premises. As against that, the assessee paid rent @ Rs.75.28 per sq.ft., which showed that the rent paid by assessee was less in comparison with the comparable uncontrolled transaction. Thus, the ALP of the Specified Domestic Tranasction of payment of rent could not be disputed.
The standard of proof in criminal proceedings was higher than the standard of proof in civil/departmental proceedings. In a reverse case, where criminal proceedings ended in acquittal but simultaneous departmental proceedings continued, the result of the criminal proceedings would not have any bearing on the departmental proceedings, as judgment of the criminal Court was not binding in civil or departmental proceedings.
Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai): Conclusion: Addition as regards the on-money received by assessee was to be made to the extent of the income element embedded in such receipts and the entire amount of on-money could not have been added in the hands of the assessee. No reason or logic had been […]
