Some of the relevant facts are, the assessee company was incorporated on September 19, 2007 under the Companies Act, 1956, to carry on trading activities which primarily included wholesale trading of all kinds of consumer goods durables, articles and products.
we feel that it would be appropriate if the ACIT reconsiders the application of the petitioner for stay in the light of the observations contained in the said decision [Soul v. DCIT (supra)]. This is so because according to the petitioner the assessment is a high pitched one inasmuch as it is approximately 17 times of the returned income.
that the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police, on the complaint of the complainant company had found that Sh. Sanjay Daksha, Sh. Sofi-urrehman, Sh. Binod Rajhans did not figure in the complainant company records before 8th March, 2004
The respondent-assessee had submitted that their total turnover was Rs.4697.23 crores, as against investment in shares of Rs.2.95 crores. In the previous assessment years they were maintaining dual portfolio of investment (capital asset) and stock-in-trade (trading asset).
In the present case, there was no basis for the AO to determine that the true value of the property was Rs. 1.25 crores, by adopting the return on capital method. The AO was under a duty first to ascertain what was according to him the true cost of the property.
On a plain reading of Section 153C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer of the searched person must be “satisfied” that inter alia any document seized or requisitioned “belongs to” a person other than the searched person.
The respondent-assessee, a partnership firm, was engaged at the relevant time in manufacture of organic chemicals. Under an agreement dated 9th June, 1987 with M/s India Craft, the respondent-assessee purchased 630 metric tonnes Isobutanol by sale on high-sea basis.
The assessee argues that the expression reasons to believe under Section 147 refers to objective circumstances. In the present case, the assessment was completed under Section 143 (3) after notice was issued under Section 142 (1) was issued and explanation sought in respect of all relevant matters.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed two writ petitions filed by N.Gopalaswami (Former CEC) & others and Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate challenging the appointment of Shri Shashi Kant Sharma as CAG of India made in May 2013
The Assessing Officer made two additions. Firstly, benefit under Section 54F of the Act was denied and capital gains of Rs.51,71, 994/- was brought to tax. The second addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.19,75,410/-
