Sales Tax subsidy received for expansion of assessee’s existing industry was capital in nature as the purpose of the same was for the expansion of the existing industry of assessee. Moreover, the amounts which were not taxable in the normal computation could not be included while computing the book profit because such amounts did not really reflect a receipt in the nature of income and could not form part of the book profit.
Assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on license fees paid to Israel entity as it had already furnished certificate from a chartered accountant, return of income and computation of income under section 139 and income of assessee was not taxable in India and assessee had already filed the relevant information u/s 201(1) which showed that assessee could not be regarded as ‘assessee in default’.
SYSKA LED Lights Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: Since the respective authority had confiscated the imported goods without providing an opportunity to importer to call upon the proper officer to disclose the grounds for valuation , therefore, the impugned order in original was clearly unsustainable in law being in violation […]
The criminal complaint case of cheating instituted against a company and its Directors over non-issuance of duplicate share certificates to the complainant was quashed as mere non-issuance of duplicate share certificates on misplacement by an alleged shareholder did not indicate malice on part of the company from the inception of the transaction and assessee acted with criminal intent at the inception on an anticipation that the shares would be misplaced at a subsequent stage.
The Delhi High Court Ruled That The Second FIR In Respect Of An Offence Or Different Offences Committed In The Course Of The Same Transaction Is Not Only Impermissible But It Violates Article 21 Of The Constitution.
Since there was a detailed enquiry by AO on issue of equity shares to non-residents and after thoroughly discussing the issue in the assessment order, AO had taken a permissible view within the parameters of the law, there remained no room for PCIT to assume the jurisdiction u/s 263.
Where assessee had existing brought forward losses which were either could not be set off against the profits and if the assessee considered any year as the initial assessment year for the benefit of Section 80IA in such cases, the eligible profits would be determined only after setting off of the losses/ unabsorbed depreciation carried forward in the year the deduction was claimed.
Addition on account of unexplained share capital/premium was not justified as AO merely doubted the financial capacity of the Investors because they had reported low income in their return of income. This could not be the sole basis to doubt the explanation of assessee. It might be suspicion of the AO only without bringing any evidence on record.
AO had recorded wrong, incorrect and non-existing reasons for reopening of the assessment. It made clear that there was a total non-application of mind on the part of AO while recording the reasons for reopening of the assessment. The reasons failed to demonstrate the live link between the alleged tangible material and the formation of belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment. Thus, reopening of the assessment was invalid and bad in law.
Where the transaction itself, on the basis of the subsequent information, was found to be bogus transaction, the mere disclosure of that transaction at the time of original assessment proceedings could not be said to be disclosure of the ‘true’ and ‘full’ facts in the case and the Income Tax Officer would have the jurisdiction to re-open the concluded assessment in such a case.
