Payment of high remuneration to Directors cannot be disallowed by treating the same as a tool to shift profits to evade tax when the Directors have already offered the income for tax through their personal returns.
Provision of section 50C is applicable as on the date of execution of sale agreement and accordingly the fair market value of the property as on the date of sale agreement is to be taken.
DCIT Vs Piramal Realty Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) We have considered the issue and find that this section does not cover section 68 of the Act. Thus, the Legislature does not envisage any sort of valuation for the purpose of section 68 of the Act. Indeed, valuation of preference shares is a completely different exercise […]
Assessee provided details of deposits and source from where the deposits have been made in the bank account. Only the relevant parties were not presented to establish the genuineness of the transaction and the same cannot lead to concealment.
Assessee LLP had failed to satisfy clause (e) of the proviso of Sec. 47(xiiib), therefore, the ‘transfer‘of the capital assets on the conversion of the private limited company into a LLP was to be regarded as a ‘transfer‘within the meaning of Sec. 45 and also, there was no occasion for invoking the provisions of Sec. 47A(4).
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.
