It is settled law that that frequency and magnitude of transaction are also important factor to decide whether the transaction is business transaction or investment transaction. Now in our considered opinion, the magnitude of share transaction in this case does call for any enquiry
The assessee is a FUND and a resident of Denmark. Along with its return of income, in India, the assessee had submitted ‘Tax Residency Certificate’ issued by the Danish Authorities in order to claim the benefit of Article 14 of India-Denmark DTAA.
First contention of the assessee is that the sale consideration cannot be taken more than the actual sale consideration shown in the transfer deed i.e. a sum of Rs.4 1.51 crores. The alternative contention is that if the sale consideration is taken as valuation done by the Stamp Valuation Authorities then there is a mistake
The assessee is a non-scheduled Co-operative Bank carrying on banking business in terms of a license issued by Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and is thus governed by Circulars of RBI relating to Prudential Norms, Income Recognition, Asset Classification, Provisioning
Briefly stated facts are that the assessee claimed deduction for Rs.6,88,12,554/- and Rs.23,78,781/- being amount payable to EYGS LLP and Ernst & Young LLP, UK respectively towards reimbursement of costs for providing access to system & management audit methodology updates
In the case in hand, from the facts, it was clearly established that the assessee had put a wrongful claim of depreciation and thereby had furnished inaccurate particulars of income for the purpose of concealment of real income, hence, the penalty proceedings were correctly initiated by the AO.
The assessee is a Chartered Accountant carrying on his profession under the partnership firm M/s. Tiwari & Co. for and from the year 1983. The partnership firm M/s. Tiwari & Co. got dissolved w.e.f. 30.12.2006 and assessee became proprietor of this firm.
Hon’ble Bangalore ITAT has in the case of Shri G.N.Mohan Raju,v/s ITO in ITA No.242 & 243(Bang) 2013 has held that notice u/s 143(2) issued prior to filing of return in response to notice u/s 147 is invalid, even if return is filed late.
ITAT Chennai rules on exemption u/s.54/54F for residential property purchase; ‘due date’ clarified as extended under Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act.
Hon’ble Hyderabad Bench has in the case of M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels v/s DCIT in IT(SS)A No. 16/Hyd/2011 has held that Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would operate prospectively as it curtails the right of the assessee.
