Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the transactions for purchase and sale of 25 lacs units called `US-64′ of the assessee with the Bank, after holding that those transactions were genuine, were (a) not bona fide transactions, (b) entered into with a motive to avoid liability for tax etc.
assessee therefore, cannot be subjected to the exercise of the jurisdiction under s. 263. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in upholding the order of the CIT, passed under s. 263, directing the AO to include the sum of Rs. 1,75,32,600 in the total income of the assessee under s. 41(1), in the previous year, relevant to asst. yr. 1982-83
Under s. 158BB, the procedure for computing the undisclosed income of the block period has been given. It provides that the undisclosed income of the block period shall be the aggregate of the total income of the previous years falling within the block period computed, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, on the basis of evidence found
One Bench of the Tribunal decided an appeal in favour of the assessee. However, another Bench refused to follow that decision even though the facts were the same on the ground that the earlier decision did not address the grievance of the Revenue and did not consider all the facts and did not lay down a clear ratio
The relief sought for by the petitioner seeking permission to be accompanied by an advocate of his choice when he appears before the Enforcement Directorate in pursuance of the summons issued under section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and recording of statement in the presence of an advocate
The assessee, an Indian company remitted mobilization & demobilization charges of Rs. 8.65 crs by way of reimbursement to its parent company, a company based in Netherlands. The assessee applied to the AO u/s 195 (2) for a Nil withholding rate though the AO held that tax had to be deducted at 11%.
Delhi High Court (HC) [2010-TIOL-139-HC-DEL-IT] in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. (Taxpayer) on the issue whether the discount retained by Prepaid Market Associates (PMAs) on sale of Subscriber Identification Module (SIM) cards or recharge coupons belonging to the Taxpayer is liable for withholding tax, under the provisions of Indian Tax Law (ITL)
The concept of sub-contract is intrinsically linked with section 194C(2); if there is no sub-contract then the person making payment is not liable to deduct tax at source even if payment is being made to a resident.
CIT Vs Aimil Ltd – It was held that if the employees contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Act and is deposited late, the employer not only pays interest on such delayed payment but could incur penalties also. Those Acts permit the employer to make deposit with some delays. Therefore, these amounts could not be disallowed under section 43B
CIT vs. Lokmat Newspapers (Bombay High Court) (Income Tax Appeal No 3005 of 2009). Speculative loss incurred in earlier years by a company can be set off against profit earned on delivery-based share trading transactions. The HC held that since the business of delivery-based share trading transactions is deemed to be a speculative business for a company, such set off is permissible.
