The offence under Section 24(1) of SEBI Act could not be compounded without SEBI consent as the alleged acts of price rigging and manipulation of the prices of the shares had a vital bearing on investors’ wealth and the orderly functioning of the securities market. SEBI was, therefore, justified in opposing the request for the compounding of the offences.
Since the major write off claim evidently pertained to vaccines which assessee consistently claimed had been nearing expiry and thus had no realizable value and nothing had been pointed out regarding the insufficiency of evidences filed by assessee, therefore, the claim of assessee was fully justified for write off of vaccines since undoubtedly such vaccines were not capable of being used beyond expiry period and had no realizable value thereafter.
Expenditure made by assessee towards purchase of equipment, such as wheel balancer/wheel aligner/wheel changer/tyre changer, was capital expenditure but not revenue expenditure as assessee had installed equipment’s, which could be removed and also could be taken back and reused in some other place and assessee would continue to be the owner of these equipments, though they were installed in the premises of the dealers.
Electrotherm (India) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) Conclusion: Since AO after applying his mind on information received from VAT Department arrived at the conclusion, based on the reasons to believe that income of assessee had escaped assessment. and at the time of issuing notice under section 148 AO had formed prima facie opinion for escapement […]
Loan to Corporate Person free of interest to be as classified Financial Debt in Section 5(8) of IBC and therefore, a Financial Creditor was competent to initiate the Corporate Resolution Process under Section 7 of the IBC.
SAP Labs India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The argument of the learned AR is that Infosys Limited is functionally different from the assessee. It owns intangible and undertakes research and development. The learned AR also submitted that it has high brand value and turnover. On the contrary, the learned DR submitted that the […]
CBI to enquire as to whether the email dated 31st May, 2021 had been issued to assessee or not, and if so, by whom. In the event it was found that the email dated 31st May, 2021 had been forged and fabricated by assessee it would initiate action under Sections 191/192/196 of the IPC. However, if it was found that the email dated 31st May, 2021 had been issued by the Income Tax of India’s e-filing portal, then it would not hesitate to take action against the Deponent
CESTAT had deleted the penalty imposed by the Customs Department and held that no penalty could be levied under section 117 if there was no willful intention / wrongful mind for violating the law and such violation occurred was only due to inadvertent omission / system error.
No addition could be made under section 69B because the two pieces of evidence relied on by Revenue Authorities viz., the data retrieved from the Pen-drive and the admission by the vendors of the property though might have a persuasive value but would not have much substantive evidentiary value in order to make additions in the hands of the assessee.
Since the findings recorded by ITAT being findings of fact, the appeal could not be entertained in absence of any substantial question of law being involved in the same, therefore, appeal of authority was dismissed.
