Assessee had issued share application money and subsequently allotted shares which showed that the transactions were genuine and there was no material brought on record by tax authorities that the assessee had benefited from round-tripping, therefore, ITAT had deleted the addition made u/s 68.
Compensation by its very nature, had to be just. For suffering, no part of which was the claimant-appellant’s own fault, she had been awarded a sum which could, at best, be described as ‘paltry’. In regard to the application of the Eggshell-Skull Rule, the impugned judgment was silent as to how this rule applied to the present case.
Assessee had miserably failed to establish genuineness of the transaction by cogent and credible evidence and that the investments made in its share capital were genuine.
Supreme Court held that subject to statutory stipulation, a repealed provision ceased to operate from the date of repeal, and the substituted provision started operating as and when it is substituted.
Operational Creditor cannot be paid through partly paid ‘Redeemable Preference Shares’ as the distribution of the amount to the Operational Creditor (other than Government Departments) was clearly contrary to provisions of Section 30 (2)(b)(ii).
Tribunal restored the matter of AO’s disallowance, which was deemed inconsistent with Section 115JB by directing assessee’s claim of deduction for computing book profit under Section 115JB required fresh verification in the light of the Chart furnished by assessee, which had been reproduced in the order.
Tribunal allowed a claim of Rs. 49.5 crore in the interest of Principle of Natural Justice after finding that the respective authorities failed to appreciate the amended provision of Section 36(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, resulting in the denial of an additional depreciation claim.
Expenditure incurred on paintings was allowable as revenue expenditure deeming it essential for creating a conducive business environment and accordingly to be construed as expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business of assessee.
Authority / power to revoke or cancel the Discharge Certificate on the premise that the material particulars furnished in the Discharge Certificate was false, lied with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Designated Committee.
Assessee-company had entered into a Purchasing Agreement with M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. whose main business was manufacture and sale of detergents, etc.
