Provision for warrant expenses was not contingent and had to be allowed as deduction while computing income under the head Income from Business & Profession. Thus, the addition made to the book profits under section 115JB was to be deleted because the liability could not be said to be contingent.
(a) The scrip is a penny stock, purchased at a low price, which is over a period of time ramped up by operators acting in benami names or name lenders. The purchases are off market purchases, and not reported on the exchange; (b) purchase/s is back dated, i.e., per a back dated contract note, paid for in cash, so that there is no trail; (c) the purchases are in the physical form, and dematerialized only subsequently; generally long after the purchase date, being back dated and, further, close to the date of sale; and (d) The investee is a penny stock company, with no credentials, and the sale rates artificially hiked, with no real buyers, so that inference of the sales being bogus, is unmistakable.
Sofina S. A. Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Transfer of shares of Singapore Company could not be regarded as a transfer of shares of its Indian subsidiary in absence of see-through approach under clause 13(5) of India Belgium Treaty Conclusion: Gain arising from transfer of shares of A Pte. Ltd., Singapore by the assessee to M/s […]
Provision for Gratuity was an ascertained liability eligible to be deducted from the net profit for the purpose of computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
The claim of exemption u/s 11 of the I.T.Act was denied by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 (supra). The Tribunal in the above case had held that the assessee’s activities of micro finance was not charitable in nature and was not entitled to the claim of benefit u/s 11 of the I.T.Act.
Addition of long-term capital gain against an investor who invested in a penny stock company in connection with the penny stock scam involving Rs. 36,000 Crores was upheld as additions made on account of detailed enquiries being carried out by Kolkata Investigation Directorate with regard to 84 penny stocks company as well as SEBI and no new facts or circumstances had been placed on record by assessee and the orders passed by the revenue authorities had also gone unrebutted.
Thus, it is seen that there is actually no sale of property by the assessees before us and the Sale Deed has been executed by the original owners through GPA holders to the children of assessees. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no transfer of property by the assessees in fact it is acquisition of property by the assessees in the names of their children and it is not the case of transfer or gain on sale of property.
The issue under consideration is that confirming the addition made u/s 68 by A.O. in respect of the loan taken from father of the appellant on mere suspicion.
The issue under consideration is whether the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 is justified if the details on the basis of which case is re-opened was already available at the time of original assessment?
Rameshwar Lal Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) The Assessee vide order sheet entry dated 18.11.2016 was required to show cause why cash payment amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- paid in cash to Cosmos Group may not be added to the income as unexplained investment. The assessee vide his submission dated 24.11.2016, stated that he had paid Rs. […]
