Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In this case issue is whether the ld. Pr. CIT is correct in invoking his powers u/s 263 of the Act. In our considered view, the Assessing Officer has called for and verified all the details and documents in connection to the purchase and sale of […]
CIT could not brand the action of AO to accept the claim of assessee in respect of LTCG as a case of no enquiry on the part of AO to term it as an erroneous order and which finding could have facilitated him to usurp/interfere by exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263. Further, CIT himself ought to have conducted enquiry to bring out the fallacy as to show how the enquiry conducted by the AO was erroneous. Thus, revision was not justified as the impugned order was nothing but cut & paste exercise without application of mind.
Additions made on the basis of statement of assessee u/s 132(4) in the hands of assessee ignoring the fact that the seized material belongs to company was not justified as the same were not attributable to the Managing Director for undisclosed and unaccounted income of the Company.
It is undisputed fact that the consideration is paid to individuals who had experience in the business of consultancy for not to engage themselves in similar kind of business and activities for a period of 3 years. It is also not disputed that such consideration is independent and not part of the cost of acquisition of business paid to shareholders.
Addition of on-money payment made in both these assessees’ hands on the basis of a mere dumb document and not corroborated by any other evidence was not sustainable as the department had failed to corroborate the impugned seized document indicating assessee’s alleged on money payment over and above the sale price itself.
Unicity Health Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) Admittedly, the business promotion expenses have been incurred for the purpose of improving sales of the assessee. There is merit in the submission of Ld. A.R. that the question of applying bright line test does not arise in the facts of the present case. Every businessman would […]
Hexagon- MIDCO India Private Ltd. Vs CIT Appeals (ITAT Mumbai) Learned Sr. DR fairly agreed that in case the holding company MIDCO Limited has deducted the TDS on salary paid to these employees no further requirement of TDS on principle but assessee has to produce evidence before the Assessing Officer. Hence, on Principle, we are […]
Shailaja Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) It is pertinent to note that the assessee has filed original return of income as on 31/08/2015 declaring an income of Rs. 5,71,960/- along with paying of double taxes of Rs. 43,230/- including self-assessment tax of Rs. 33,230/- on 31/8/2015. In the original return of income loss against sale of […]
CIT had erred in law and as on facts in withdrawing assessee’s approval granted u/s.10(23C)(vi) as the impugned entire exercise to withdraw assessee’s approval suffered from inherent lack of jurisdiction.
Shree Samruddhi Overseas Trading Co. Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad) It is submitted on behalf of the assessee that the assessee had taken a temporary loan of Rs.8 Lakhs and Rs.2 Lakhs aggregating Rs.10,00,000/- in the month of June 2012 from Shri Rakesh Vallabhbhai Swadia. The loan so obtained was also repaid in the month of […]
