The provisions of section 68 cannot be applied to sundry creditors and the assessee cannot be applied to sundry creditors and the assessee cannot be asked to prove the 3 ingredients of cash credits in respect of sundry creditors.
The assessee is a company and is in the business of investment. An addition of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act, were made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee failed to explain the sources of funds for the share capital received by it at a premium. On appeal the ld.
IBM India Pvt. Ltd case: IBM Philippines received the monies in the course of their business and did not have PE in India and therefore the receipt in question could not be brought to tax
Microfinish Valves Private Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT Bengalore) No deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) in case loan to borrower not being shareholder in lender company Conclusion: Since assessee was not a shareholder in lender company, therefore, AO was unjustified in taxing loan received by assessee as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e). Held: Assessee was a company […]
Lakshman M. Charanjiva Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Indexation benefit against the cost of acquisition shall be available to the assessee on the basis of index of the year in which the payments were actually made by the assessee. The payment made up-to the date of agreement i.e. 18/10/2007 shall be indexed by applying the index […]
Interest can only be allowed when it is actually paid and conversion of unpaid interest into loan does not amount to deemed payment of interest in terms of section 43B.
While computing capital gains arising on transfer of a capital asset acquired by assessee under a gift or will, indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed with reference to year in which previous owner first held asset and not with reference to the year in which the assessee became owner of asset.
Since no assessment was pending on the date of search and addition had been made on basis of post-search enquiries and statements recorded under section 132(4) on various persons, therefore, AO had no power to assume jurisdiction under provisions of section 153A as no incriminating material was found.
Baniara Engs (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) From the reading of Sec. 50C, it is evident that Sec. 50C is a deeming provision and it extends to only to land or building or both. Section 50C can come into play only in a situation where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the […]
Farrukhabad Investment (India) Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Agra Third Member) The Id. DR cited several reasons, which, in his opinion, justified imposition of penalty, such as,. the RBI rejecting the application for registration of NBFC; names and addresses of the depositors not available; no books of account or vouchers available; a qualification by the auditors […]
