Assessee has not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how the shares in an unknown company had jumped to an higher amount in no time when the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis to justify the price rise. Also, assessee failed to provide details of persons who purchased the shares. Clearly, assessee had indulged in a dubious share transaction, meant to account for undisclsoed income in the garb of long-term capital gain, therefore, such gain had to be assessed as undisclosed credit under section 68.
Airport Retail P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Conclusion: Payments towards bank charges for credit card payments were not liable for TDS under section 194H as the same was not a commission. Held: Assessee had made payments towards bank charges for credit card payments . AO made the additions as assessee made payment without deduction […]
DCIT (E) Vs Baroda Cricket Association (ITAT Ahmedabad) Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India provides certain protection in this regard which states that no person can be convicted for any offence except for a violation of a law in force at the time of action charged an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty […]
Addition under section 68 on basis of information received from investigation wing as to assessee having received share application money from alleged entry operator was not justified as assessee had filed sufficient evidences and details to prove identity and creditworthiness of share application and genuineness of transaction of receipt of share application money
Since AO and wrongly took the date of deposit of self-assessment tax as date of filing of appeal whereas date of self-assessment tax payment had to be treated as the date of removal of defect in the appeal as originally filed, thus, once defect of remittance of self-assessment tax stood removed, CIT(A) was required to adjudicate the appeal on merits as the same was filed within prescribed period of 30 days from the receipt of order of AO.
Sudarshan Kumar Jain Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) I find the son of the assessee Dr. Sandeep Jain who appeared before the Assessing Officer had categorically stated that whatever amount has been paid towards admission and donation/capitation fee has been paid by him. He and his wife are doctors since 1996 and have sufficient source to […]
To compute disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D AO was directed to consider only those investments which had yielded exempt income during the year.
Sh. Ashwani Khurana Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Undisputedly assessee had entered into an agreement to sell qua his property bearing no. 56 Golf Links, New Delhi with one Sanjay Pashi after accepting the earnest money of Rs. 4,62,50,000/-, which was subsequently forfeited as the prospective buyer Sanjay Pashi has failed to perform his part of […]
Zaheer Abdulhamid Mulani Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) The sanctity in terms of natural justice with regard to this proposition is that the assessee under the scheme of welfare legislation which is embedded in the Income Tax Act, 1961 should get an opportunity to prepare himself for the defense as regards to the exact charge on which […]
M/s. Shree Balaji Ventures Vs ITO (ITAT Pune) It is apparent that the view point bolstered by the authorities that Annual Letting Value in respect of unsold properties lying with the assessee as a stock in trade, should be determined u/s. 23 of the Act, cannot be countenanced in the hue of the later judgments […]
