ITAT Delhi, last week held that the transaction of making payment of Rs. 95,50,31,150/- (on account of arbitral award) by Hyundai Rotem Company to the DMRC made on behalf of its AE would not part of the margin calculation to be added to revenue and cost for bench marking the international transaction.
Pr CIT Vs Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) Once the Assessee has produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of such Companies, the burden would shift on the Revenue-Appellants herein to establish their case. In the present case, the Appellants are seeking to rely upon the statements recorded of two persons who […]
Assessing Officer expected the assessee to disclose, and which were necessary for his assessment but not disclosed. Therefore, factually speaking, we find enough weight in the plea canvassed that there has been no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the material facts as required by the proviso to Sec. 147 of the Act and thus, in our view, the initiation of proceedings by issuance of notice u/s 147/148 of the Act was vitiated.
While dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue the Delhi bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that assessment under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act without jurisdiction when documents seized not belonged to the assessee is invalid.
The ld.counsel for the assessee while impugning the orders of Revenue authorities took us through section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and pointed out that as per sub-section (2) of section 159 notice upon legal heirs ought to have been issued by the AO, which the AO has failed to do so, and therefore, the assessment order is a nullity and deserves to be quashed.
Mr. Hasmukh I. Gandhi Vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Mumbai) In this case Information was received by CBDT from German Authorities about bank account held by a trust named as Manichi Trust where economically beneficial ownership of the assets is of the appellant and his family members. Specific details such as date of birth, residential address, […]
The fact of the second sale was denied and the same arguments were put forth, namely that (i) the assessee had no knowledge of the second deal and (ii) the purchasers of the property Kanekleta Umengbhai Thakker and Umangbhai HiralalThakker had filed affidavits stating that they paid only Rs.3.70 crores and that the sale deed of Rs. 1.37 crores was executed by mistake.
Where assessee paid interest on term loan which had entirely been used for purpose of purchasing the assets for purpose of business which were hypothecated to bank and it had sufficient interest-free funds to take care of advances, the deduction under section 36(1)(iii) was allowable.
Section 194J would have application only when the technology or technical knowledge, experiences/ skills of a person is made available to others which can be further used by him for its own purpose and not where by using technical systems, services are rendered to others.
Amount received by assessee form a closely held company in the guise of an agreement having no existence in the eyes of law, was to be assessed as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) in assessee’s hands on account of his substantial shareholding.
