A plain reading of the Section 269SS indicates that (the import of the above provision is limited) it applies to a transaction where a deposit or a loan is accepted by an assessee, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or an account payee draft.
The assessing officer is a prospector of the revenue and he is no doubt expected to protect the interests of the revenue zealously, but such zeal has to be tempered with the rules of fair play and an anxiety to ensure that a opportunity is not lost to the assessee to make alternative arrangements for clearing the tax dues, once the stay applications filed under section 220(3) are rejected.
Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v Kultar Exports [TS-315-HC-2014(DEL)] pronounced on 23-05-2014 wherein the assessee has claimed deduction for the AY 2001-04 under Section 80HHC which provides deduction to the exporters.
The assesse would be entitled to the approval under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, however if it was found that the funds of the assesse had not been utilized for its objects during the relevant year or had otherwise not complied with the provisos to the Section 10(23C) of the Act
Section 43B deals with statutory dues and stipulates that the year in which the payment is made the same would be allowed as a deduction even if the assessee is following the mercantile system of accountancy.
In the present case the retrospective amendment was introduced after the original assessment. The introduction of the amendment occasioned the re-assessment. The reassessment order gave effect to the amendment.
a. The PMS Agreement in this case was a mere agreement of agency and cannot be used to infer any intention to make profit. b. The intention of an assessee must be inferred holistically, from the conduct of the assessee, the circumstances of the transactions, and not just from the seeming motive at the time of depositing the money
In an Writ Petition filed by Mr. Harish Khurana before Delhi High Court against the Various amendment made by Companies Act,2013, Ministry of Corporate Affairs has submitted before the Honorable Delhi High Court that several representations made by the petitioner and other similarly
The assessee is engaged in business of auto spare pails and investment in bonds, mutual funds and other securities. The assessee filed his return declaring STCG on the basis that the shares were purchased with an intention of investment.
The facts of this case are that the petitioner lost its appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) on 20.11.2013. The revenue issued notice under Section 221 for determined demand amounts due for the AY 2007-08, which was subject matter of the appeal before the CIT (Appeals).
