Fact that the Assessee is a part of DuPont, a global conglomerate which had in 2011 $37.96 billion in net sales and $6.253 billion as operating profit , cannot be said to be an irrelevant factor in considering whether any genuine hardship was undergone by the Petitioner.
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.
Impugned order of assessment was made based on the Web Report, the Assessing Authority is not justified in passing the impugned order of assessment, without furnishing the details of such report and without conducting any enquiry at all levels.
What they believe to be information is a post circulated on WhatsApp platform or an alleged translation in a website. The alleged information is not claimed to be true to their knowledge. It is not even stated in the petition as to how the petitioners have formed a reasonable belief that the alleged post or the translation could be true or have any basis.
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.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (ITAT) order upholding the Appellate Commissioner’s opinion that the additions made in the course of reassessments were unsustainable, were challenged by the Revenue. The reassessment notice was issued to the assessee for AY 2002- 03 on the ground that information received from the Investigation Wing pointed to its being the beneficiary of the accommodation entries that were subjected to addition under Section 68.
1] We have heard Mr. Pinto appearing on behalf of Revenue in support of this appeal. 2] In paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 of this memo of appeal, the Revenue says that the facts are as under:- “4.1 The Assessing Officer, from the records noted that the Respondent Company had made payment of a sum of […]
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.
The Court finds that the concurrent findings of both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the ITAT are that the consistent treatment of the said transactions in the books of accounts of the Assessee and the volume and frequency of such transactions did not justify treating the income as business income.
