Shares purchased pursuant to the order of Company Court would not amount to capital gain and rather to be treated as a dividend.Whenever a company distributes its profits to its shareholders, the profit so disbursed, will amount to dividend and Dividend Distribution Tax at 15% was required to be paid by assessee u/s 115O.
Under normal circumstances, a person, who secured the facility of payment by installments and who committed default in complying with the same, may not be entitled to any indulgence. But, the facts of the case are little peculiar. It is seen from the representation made by the petitioner that the petitioner became a sick company from the year 2011 and their account was declared as Non-Performing Asset by the State Bank of India.
Pr. CIT Vs Shamrao Vithal Co-Op Bank (Bombay High Court) The division bench of the Bombay High Court has held that penalty cannot be levied under the Income Tax merely on the ground that a deduction claim was rejected by the department. The assessee is a Co-operative Bank. For the relevant A.Y under consideration, the […]
CIT Vs M/s. Reliance Life Insurance Co Ltd (Bombay High Court) Assessee had hired the services for various works such as storage of data, scanning of documents, processing charges, call centre operations etc. Looking to the nature of services outsourced, it was held that the same were basically clerical services of repetitive nature of work […]
Pr. CIT Vs Lemon Tree Hotels (P) Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The question of law urged with respect to expenditure claimed towards case of Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) has been subject matter of previous orders of this Court in respect of the present assessee. For A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA 107/2017 (Commissioner of Income Tax […]
President or the Senior Vice President concerned of the Tribunal should take appropriate steps and expedite the hearing in these appeals, so as to ensure that final orders in all these appeals are announced at the earliest, preferably within four months from today.
In the absence of any material to establish that the affiliated colleges/centres were rendering services of professional or technical nature in the matter of conducting the University’s examination, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any error of law in holding that the tax was not deductable on such reimbursement under Section 194J(b) of the Act.
Where the documents on record conclusively establish that the receipt did not give rise to any taxable income, it would not be open for AO to reopen the assessment referring only to the non disclosure of the receipt in the return of income.
Court has no hesitation to hold that the Benami Amendment Act, 2016, amending the Principal Benami Act, 1988, enacted w.e.f. 1st November, 2016, i.e. the date determined by the Central Government in its wisdom for its enforcement; cannot have retrospective effect.
Principal Commissioner of Central Tax Vs Supreet Singh Bakshi (Patiala House Courts) In the case in hand, applicant / accused is stated to be the proprietor of M/s. Swift Enterprises, whereas, his father and brother are stated to be the Directors of M/s. Megabyte I.T. Pvt. Ltd. and his employee Rakesh Kumar Gupta is stated […]
