We could notice from the record that the assessee was having share holding funds to the extent of 2607.18 crores and the investment made by it was to the extent of Rs. 195.10 crores. In other words, the assessee had sufficient funds for making the investments and it has not used the borrowed
There is no dispute about the fact that the order of penalty at annexure A dated 12.3.2010 was made against the petitioner on the basis of the assessment of income of the petitioner done by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Act.
We hold that both employees’ and employer’s contributions are covered under the amendment to Section 43B of I.T. Act and the Alom Extrusions judgment. Hence the Tribunal was right in holding that payments thereof are subject to benefits of Section 43B.
In this case Joint Commissioner had acted mechanically in order to discharge his statutory obligation properly in the matter of recording sanction as he merely wrote on the format Yes, I am satisfied which indicated as if he was to sign only on the dotted line, whereas satisfaction has to be with objectivity on objective material. Thus, reopening of assessment was invalid.
In the instant case, the assesse has issued shares to its holding company at premium (INR 8591) amounting to INR 246.38 crores. The said transaction was reported in Form 3CEB, although assesse claimed TP Provisions are not applicable on income arising on such transactions.
we feel that it would be appropriate if the ACIT reconsiders the application of the petitioner for stay in the light of the observations contained in the said decision [Soul v. DCIT (supra)]. This is so because according to the petitioner the assessment is a high pitched one inasmuch as it is approximately 17 times of the returned income.
Tribunal was justified in assessing the correctness of the notice for reopening the assessment under Section 148 on the basis of the reasons which were disclosed by the Assessing Officer. Those reasons, as the Tribunal noted, could not give rise to a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for the simple reason that in the computation of income, the assessee had adopted the circle rate which is higher than the sale consideration. Hence, the appeal will not give rise to any substantial question of law.
In the present case, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee had invested a certain amount of its funds in shares and that the dividend which has been received or receivable did not form part of the total income.
Sub-section (1) of Section 151 provides inter alia that where an assessment has been made under section 143(3), a notice under section 148 cannot be issued by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner unless the Joint Commissioner
CBDT is directed to modify the notification dated 20th August, 2014 issued in exercise of powers under section 119 of the Act by extending the due date for furnishing the return of income to 30th November, 2014.
