Shri Harish Narinder Salve Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Undoubtedly, assessee is a noted international lawyer who has set up a scholarship for creating his visibility in international arena and his social standing. The assessee has specifically submitted that it has increased lot of value of the CV of the assessee and the government of Singapore […]
Before a scheme can be regarded as a lottery, there must be the element of distribution of prizes which should be by chance or lot and such distribution should be among those who had paid a price for participating in the scheme. Mere gratuitous distribution without any price having been paid by the participants for acquiring the chance and receiving a prize that is ultimately distributed, would not amount to a lottery.
No doubt assessee has meticulously completed the paper work by routing his entire investment through banking channel but the results thereof are altogether beyond human probabilities. Because neither in the past nor in the subsequent years, assessee has indulged into any such investment having huge windfall. Had the assessee been so intelligent qua the intricacies of the share market, he would have definitely undertaken such risk taking activities in the past or future by making such investment in the unknown stock. So, we are of the considered view that what appears to be apparent in making investment by the assessee in unknown stock is not real when examined the whole transaction of sale and purchase of the stock with huge windfall to the assessee.
Where the assessee had clear intention of being an investor and had held shares by way of investment, assessee was to be treated as investor and any gain arising out of transfer of shares was to be treated as ‘capital gain’ and not ‘business income’.
AO was justified in bringing book profit u/s 115JB determined to tax inspite of assessee-company eligible for section 10AA benefit as on combined reading of provisions of sub-section (5) and (6) of section 115JB, it was clear that the MAT provisions had been specifically made applicable to assessee company in respect of its income from business carried on in its SEZ Unit for assessment year 2012-13 and onwards.
Addition on non-CASS issues made without obtaining due permission from superior authorities was in contravention of CBDT guidelines and, therefore, could not be sustained.
Sanatan Dharam Shiksha Sammittee Vs CIT (Exemptions) (ITAT Delhi) t is pertinent to note that from the perusal of the by-laws of the society, all the clauses are general clauses which do not point out any charitable activity. In fact, from the objectives the society will purchase and sell immovable property as per society’s needs. […]
Where assessee was not required to maintain any books of account and there was no mechanism to report the investment in the tax return, the said investment could not be held as undisclosed investment and more so, undisclosed income so defined in section 271AAB, therefore, investment so found in purchase of Villa could not be termed as undisclosed income within the meaning of “undisclosed income” and penalty levied thereon was liable to be set aside.
Shri Dilpreet Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) Section 148 Conclusive proof as to escapement of income at notice stage not required At the stage of issue of notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961, the only question to be seen is whether there was relevant material, on the basis of which a reasonable […]
M/s. Theis Precision Steel India Private Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) From perusal of Section 37 of the Act, we find that all expenditure incurred in the course of business of the assessee is allowable except personal expenditure and capital expenditure. Admittedly, professional fee has been paid for valuation of know-how of business and, therefore, […]
