ITO Vs Shri Ramesh Kumar (HUF) (ITAT Bangalore) It should be kept in mind that the Hindu Law does not recognize a joint Hindu family or coparcenery as a juristic personality capable of holding property and as an entity separate from the members of the family. The true position in law is that all the […]
Reassessment was bad in law beyond four years when the tax payer had disclosed the facts at the time of original assessment proceedings and the AO did not draw any adverse inference regarding the same.
ITAT Bangalore held that before setting aside the matter the PCIT must have some material which would enable to form prima facie opinion that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Revision under section 263 of Income Tax Act not possible on guess work.
ITAT Bangalore held that excess premium paid by the assessee on redemption of preference shares cannot be taxed as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(d) or section 2(22)(e) and hence deleted the addition.
While holding that the premium on redemption of preference shares was exigible to tax under the head Income from Capital Gains, the ITAT held that the revenue authorities were not justified in making the additions to the assessees income on the ground of notional premium receivable on preference shares.
ITAT Bangalore held that in the absence of no written agreement exists between the assessee and its AE requiring the assessee to incur advertisement, marketing and promotion (AMP) expenses, the same cannot be regarded as an international transaction at all and hence TP adjustment not sustainable
ITAT Bangalore held that expression expenditure also includes loss and therefore the difference between the price at which the shares are issued to the employees and the market value of the shares would be expenditure incurred for section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act
As entire amount is debited to the Profit and Loss account and accounted in the regular books of accounts, the same cannot be disallowed under Section 69C
In our opinion, the assessee is having no explanation with regard to generation of scraps and sale of the same. In our opinion, it is only a make-believe story so as to account the unaccounted cash generation by assessee. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the argument of the learned Counsel for the assessee.
ITAT Bangalore Held that declared additional income offered to tax as business income is sustainable when the only source of income is business income. Hence, the provisions of section 115BBE cannot be invoked to tax the income as ‘deemed income’.
