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Supreme Court held that subject to statutory stipulation, a repealed provision ceased to operate from the date of repeal, and the substituted provision started operating as and when it is substituted.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.
The contention of assessee-company that the person issuing the show cause notice i.e., Special Director was “the” Adjudicating Authority and all proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice issued by him should be continued and concluded by the person issuing the show cause notice and no other was rejected.
Reassessment proceedings on the ground that assessee was one of the beneficiary of Client Code Modification (CCM) by some broker was quashed as there was no material to infer that such client code modification had been done with the malafide purpose of shifting the profit or evasion of the tax.
