Swati Luthra Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Assessee had entered into genuine transaction of sale and purchase of shares and therefore, satisfied the conditions of Section 10(38) as no law prohibits purchase of shares in cash and it was the option of the buyer of shares to keep the shares either in Demat form or […]
Since the director was not a shareholder when bonus was paid to him and also the bonus was not paid out of the earlier years’ accumulated profits, therefore, deduction of bonus paid to director was allowable under 36(1)(ii).
Smt. Sapna Chauhan Vs ITO (ITAT Agra) It is settled position in law that the question of Jurisdiction is not a matter of acquiescence. The proprietary of Notice under section 148, based upon ‘reasons recorded’ is not dependent upon the objection or no objection by the assessee at the stage of assessment. If the Reasons […]
ACIT Vs Rohini Hotel (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) A perusal of the Page Nos. 6-13 of the Paper Book filed by the assessee shows that the assessee has filed certain reconciliation statements in respect of the shortfall of investments u/s. 68 added by the AO. The same are scanned and made a part of […]
Where the documentary evidences furnished by assessee clearly supported the claim of exemption under section 10(38) on account of sale of securities that assessee entered into genuine transaction of sale of shares through recognized exchange upon which STT had also been paid and there was no other evidence available on record against assessee so as to make the impugned addition under section 68, accordingly, addition was to be deleted.
The issue under consideration is that the Income of interest received on advances should be considered as income from other sources or not?
As the actor Shilpa Shetty was a brand ambassador for IPL team Rajasthan Royals, she was bound to render certain services without any charge to subsidiary company JIPL owned by holding company of her husband and assessee did not receive any consideration for the services rendered to JICPL, in the absence of any ‘price’, the provision of services could not be considered as an ‘international transaction under sec. 92(1).
The issue under consideration is whether the addition u/s 68 on account of share capital and share premium by treating the same as unexplained cash credit is justified in law?
Though assessee had not become owner of property in question because there was no registered sale deed executed by vendor, however, becoming the owner of the property in question was not required for the purpose of section 54/54F and, therefore, no deduction could be denied to assessee.
Requirement of section 54 in the second limb is that capital gain should be used in construction of residential house and nothing more. Assessee in the instant case was the owner of super-structure constructed by utilizing capital gain and it was clear from the lease deed by which land over which construction had been put up was given on lease to assessee, therefore, deduction under sections 54 could not be disallowed.
