In B.R Petrochem Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO, the division bench of the Madras High Court held that mere furnishing of identity of shareholders by the asseessee would not sufficient to discharge their onus under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. While confirming the addition made against the assessee, the bench ruled that the assessee must prove the genuineness and credit worthiness of the creditors in order to shift the burden to the department.
It is clear from the reading of Section 3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, that whenever complaints are received from a number of depositors against a Financial Establishment, which defaults or fails to return the deposits or fails to provide services for which the deposits have […]
Decision of the arbitral tribunal to pierce the corporate veil is fundamentally flawed. It falls foul of the fundamental policy of Indian law that recognises that a company is an independent juristic person.
Petitioners insist that they should get salary through the existing account with the SBI itself without insisting them to open accounts with the IDBI. Therefore, denial of salary to the petitioners on the ground that they did not open account with IDBI bank is illegal.
Section 50C is a measure provided to bridge the gap as it was found that the assessee were not correctly declaring the full value of consideration or in other words resorting to the practice of under valuation. Further, the decision of Special Bench in the case of ITO vs. United Marines Academy (supra) has made it clear that section 50C will be applicable on the sale value of depreciable asset.
The Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue vide Circular No. 6 of 2016 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes 29th February, 2016 referring to the earlier circular No. 4 of 2009 dated 15th June, 2007 has laid down that in order to reduce litigation, the sale of listed shares would be treated as capital gain if they are held by the assessee for a period of more than 12 months immediately preceding the date of these transfers.
If appellant explained source of loans received by it and duly discharges the onus cast on him under section 68 of Income Tax Act 1961 than despite the fact that lender may have raised bogus share capital to advance funds to appellant does not mean that loan received by appellant can be treated as unexplained income under section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
There is no provision in Service Tax Rules for inclusion of value of scrap as an additional consideration; only the amounts received towards taxable services are leviable to service tax.
Relative explained in Explanation to section 56(2)(vi) of the Act includes relatives and as the assessee received gift from his HUF, which is a group of relatives, the gift received by the assessee from the HUF should be interpreted to mean that the gift was received from the relatives therefore the same is not taxable under section 56(2)(vi) of the Act, we hold accordingly.
The appellant, an assessee under the KVAT Act, classified the product, “Appy Fizz” as fruit juice based drink under Entry 71 of the notification issued under Section 6(1)(d) of Act, 2003 paid @ 12.5% VAT. In the year 2007, the Department initiated assessment proceedings against one of the distributors of the assessee finding that the product, “Appy Fizz”, being an “aerated branded soft drink” is taxable @ 20%. The OT Revision filed against the order was dismissed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition filed against the order was later permitted to be withdrawn.
