CBDT itself has accepted the proposition that the share income from the firm received by the partners is exempt u/s 10(2A) of the Act and under no circumstances can be taxed in the hands of the partners.
In the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd vs. ACIT , ITAT Cochin held that The loss on sale of shares of a wholly-owned subsidiary is allowable under Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as a business loss if the investment in the subsidiary was made for commercial purposes.
These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08, in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153C of I.T.Act.
It is an admitted position that theft/ fraud had indeed taken place in the assessee company and the AO had nowhere doubted the fact of fraud but he disallowed the claim of the assessee for the reason that the assessee could not establish the fact of fraud like non- production of copy of FIR and not taking any legal action against the employee who was involved in this activity of fraud.
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-II, Jaipur dated 3.12.2013 for A.Y 2009-10 wherein the Revenue has taken following grounds of appeal
It was held that impounded loose sheet can at the most be termed as dumb document which did not contain full details about the dates, and its contents were not corroborated by any material and could not relied upon and made the basis of addition.
Expenditure incurred by pharmaceutical companies in respect of physician sample etc. has remained controversial issue. The recent decision of Mumbai ITAT in DCIT vs. PHL Pharma P. Ltd, Mumbai has thrown new light on the issue.
Assessee cannot be held liable to deduct tax at higher of the rates prescribed in section 206AA in case of payments made to non-resident persons having taxable income in India in spite of their failure to furnish the Permanent Account Numbers.
Onus is on the assessee company to bring on record the cogent evidences to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction which in the instant case the assessee is not able to prove the same as per the facts emerging from the records and material before us as […]
In all these appeals preferred by the assessee, the action of the Learned CIT(Appeals) in sustaining the penalty levied under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at Rs.8,53,281 in assessment year 2006-07, Rs.73,54,710 in assessment year 2007-08, Rs.6,81 ,61 5 in assessment year 2008-09, Rs.49,48,020 in assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.10,56,756 in assessment year 2010-11 has been questioned.
