In our view, the said Section can be applied if there is a transfer of shares in favour of a Firm or a Company. For the transfer of shares, we agree with the assessee that there must be a transferor and transferee and transferred assets i.e., shares. In the case of amalgamation, it cannot be said that there is a transfer of shares as there is only statutory vesting of the assets by virtue of the Scheme.
Reassessment order passed without disposal of objections raised by assessee by passing a speaking order by AO was illegal and invalid.
Kohinoor Industrial Premises Co– operative Society Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Undisputedly, the assessee has derived rental income from letting out space in the terrace of the building to mobile companies for installing their mobile tower / antenna. It is also a fact that the assessee has offered such rental income as income from house […]
ITO Vs Ms. Rayoman Carriers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) The insinuation of revenue that ITAT passes order in a state of oblivion to the facts and antecedents to the appeal, displays a totally irresponsible and cavalier approach on the part of Revenue on the cusp of contempt and deserving exemplary cost to purge the same. […]
ITO Vs M/s. Dinal Diamonds (ITAT Mumbai) We find that in this case the sales have not been doubted. It is settled law that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchase cannot be done. The rationale being no sales is possible without actual purchases. This proposition is supported from the Hon’ble jurisdictional […]
Reassessment was rightly opened under section 147 by AO as he had received fresh and tangible material being incriminating information from DGIT(Inv.) which in turn was based on incriminating information received from VAT authorities that assessee to be beneficiary of alleged bogus purchases and it was sufficient to reopen concluded assessment within the parameters of section 147.
Since assessee had given reasonable cause for availing loan in cash from his father within the meaning of section 271D, therefore, he would be out of the rigours of levy of penalty under section 271D and no penalty could be levied.
Where payments in the nature of royalty/fee for technical services (FTS) were made to non -residents, an order u/s. 201 passed after one year from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings were initiated was void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
Since assessee had explained both the nature & source of share capital received with premium and also submitted PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants, therefore, addition under section 68 was unjustified.
Penalty under section 271AAB could not be imposed on assessee as old jewellery found in the locker of assessee and family members could not be treated as undisclosed for the purpose of levying penalty.
