Hon’ble Delhi HC has held in the case of ‘Bharti Gupta Ramola Vs. CIT’ that For computing holding period of asset both date on which asset is acquired & date on which said asset is sold or transferred are not to be excluded.
Recently Delhi High Court has in the case of AT&T Communication Services India (P) Ltd vs. CIT held that The question whether the accounts and the related documents and records available with the A.O. present complexity is essentially to be decided by the A.O. and in this area the power of the court to intrude should necessarily be used sparingly.
Recently Delhi High Court has in the case of Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT held that The law only requires that the information or material on which the AO records his or her satisfaction is communicated to the asseseee, without mandating the disclosure of any specific document.
Recently Delhi High Court has in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT held that It is expected of from Assessing Officer, having rejected the stay application, to wait for a reasonable period before he takes coercive steps to recover the amounts
The share applicants’ lack of resources, the assessee’s position vis-à-vis share amounts received and its commercial condition all pointed to the amount received by it falling within the mischief of Section 68 as unexplained amounts. That the AO or ITAT chose to treat the amount, as bogus share capital, is a matter of inference which the Court would be loath to interfere with.
There can be no doubt that the burden of showing that expenditure would be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business under Section 37(1) is upon the assessee and that personal expenditure cannot be claimed as business expenditure.
We have examined the original record but did not find the proceedings or order sheets relating to original proceedings on record. This is a serious lapse, and it is apparent that the proceeding sheets in the respondents‟ custody and charge, have been removed.
The petitioner is a retired officer of the Indian Revenue Service and served in various capacities including, inter alia, the position of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Director General of Vigilance, Chief Vigilance Officer of the Central Board of Direct Taxes
The Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal placing reliance on the decision in case of CIT v. Kelvinator, (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) emphasizing that AO has power to re-open, provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief.
The ITAT in its impugned judgment took note of the statement of D.K. Jain and the retraction of the assessee on 21.02.2008. It was also noticed that the said statement was recorded in the course of survey under Section 133A and consequently did not have any evidentiary value.
