Mohan Thakur Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Facts- As per the report, information was received from the Australian taxation office that the Assessee under consideration has transferred funds amounting to 12,97,122 AU (Australian Dollars) to many of his relatives through hawala system for the period of F.Y. 2007-08 to 2012-13. Shri. Shagun Thakur (son) has claimed […]
Since in the present case, the sanction was accorded by the ld. CIT in a purely mechanical manner without application of judicious mind, therefore, the sanction so accorded cannot be held to be a proper and valid sanction within the meaning of Section 151 of the Act
When the taxing authorities intend to tax the whole sale consideration as taxable consideration which includes the portion of the cost of flat then the assessee has deemed to have paid for the flat as purchase consideration.
Techknoweledgy Interactive Partners P. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) To make the scheme of section 254(2) workable and to ensure that the limitation period for filing of the appeal is to be computed in a manner in harmony with the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court above, the limitation period is to be […]
Cisco Systems Capital (India) Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The assessee grievance is bundled approach for benchmarking should be accepted. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the TPO has accepted the bundled approach of aggregation of payment of fees for administrative support services in the preceding years (i.e. from the incorporation year […]
The TPO and DRP erred in treating CCDs as ECBs and benchmarked the interest rate against LIBOR rate. The CCDs is a hybrid instrument and cannot be per se treated as ECB / loan.
An undisclosed foreign bank account per se can indeed be treated as an asset under section 2(11) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act 2015.
So far as profit attribution of a DAPE is concerned, the legal position is that as long as an agent is paid an arm’s length remuneration for the services rendered, nothing survives for taxation in the hands of the dependent agency permanent establishment.
In our view no addition under section 68 of the Act on account of share capital could have been made only if addition under section 56 of the Act on share premium was also made. This is because Assessing Officer had no reasons to belief that income has escaped assessment under section 68 of the Act being cash credit on account of share premium or share application money or share capital as the case may be.
If AO, after passing an assessment order, finds something amiss in it to the detriment of the Revenue, he has ample power to either reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision.
