Limit of exemption of Rs. 50 lakh under section 194-IA(2) was applicable to each transferee separately as each transferee was a separate income tax entity therefore, the law has to be applied with reference to each transferee as an individual transferee / person and not with reference to the amount as per sale deed.
Addition made by AO on the reason that assessee had introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain was not correct as AO had not brought any material on record to show that assessee had paid over and above purchase consideration of shares as claimed and evident from the bank account and assessee had produced the relevant record to show the allotment of shares by the company on payment of consideration by cheque.
Difference between alleged fair market value of share and the subscribed value of shares cannot be assessed as income u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) as the transaction of issue of shares was carried out to comply with a covenant in the loan agreement with the bank to fund the acquisition of the business by the subsidiary in USA, therefore, such a bonafide business transaction could not be taxed under section 56(2)(vii) especially when there was not even a whisper about money laundering by the AO in the assessment order.
Amended 80A (5) could not be read as a stipulation barring and restricting the assessee from revising the computation/claim for deduction made in accordance with Section 80A (5).
Bogus Capital gains- Order is against the principle of natural justice in as much as the order has been passed taking the statement of person as base, the copy of which is not made available to the assessee. Further, opportunity to cross examine the concerned person was also not provided to the assessee.
The issue under consideration is whether under block of assets, the depreciation allowed even for those assets which have not been used during the year under consideration?
Income earned corresponding to the expenditure alleged to be bogus is not question and hence the entire expenditure incurred which is duly supported by the income cannot be disallowed. Genuineness of the transaction has been proved by the documentary evidence. Addition restricted to the difference in the gross profit declared as compared to the average gross profit rate of earlier five years.
M/s. EPE Process Filters & Accumulators Pvt Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) Assessee’s submissions in support of its claim u/s 37 of the Act are that it has purchased the IPL cricket match tickets to distribute them amongst its long standing customers to garner their goodwill and improve its business relations and therefore, it is […]
Learned DR submitted that the AO has failed to examine the claim for deduction under section 54F of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings as required by the law. Accordingly, the learned DR submitted that the revision order passed by the learned CIT does not call for any interference.
Transaction is duly recorded in the books of accounts, statutory returns are duly filed with regard to allotment of shares. Documentary evidence proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction is provided. Addition under section 68 not possible.
