Appellant has adduced documentary evidences in support of transaction in question. Identity of purchasers of shares was established as it was borne on record of Income Tax Department.
(a) Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) did not in fact record satisfaction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for issuing notice under Section 147, in the circumstances of the case?
Whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act even when the assessee was not the owner of the property in question and was in possession thereof as a lessee during the year under consideration?
Whether payments made by the assessee to its holding company Nitrex Chemicals India Ltd for the use of its trademark and for the purpose of obtaining expertise in commerce, finance,manufacturing etc. amounted to revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure?
Assessees engaged in providing telecom services deduction u/s 80IA shall be allowed in respect of even those incidental incomes earned during the course of telecom business
Since no incriminating material was unearthed by AO during the course of search operation under section 132, therefore, no addition could be made during the relevant assessment year under section 153A by reopening the assessment on the matter which was examined earlier during original assessment.
Delhi HC held that a Chartered Accountant while doing concurrent audit is expected to check the transactions falling within the scope of audit in depth. Thus, non-checking of the same would be gross negligence on his part while performing professional duties.Accordingly, he is liable to face the charge of professional misconduct under clause 7 of the First Schedule of the CA Act, 1949.
Delhi HC held that threating letter issued by professional with reminder of unpaid professional dues is unethical conduct which is not expected by members of a civil society to be committed by a professional like that of Chartered Accountant who is looked upon by the society as a dignified professional.
A CA may drive rashly and negligently and in the process may kill a human being. This conduct would be an offence, but not a misconduct for the purposes of the Act Similarly , in the instant case , the respondent was acting as an individual in his dealings with the complainant which were purely commercial. While selling the shares held by him the respondent was not acting as a Chartered Accountant. He was not discharging any function in relation to his practice as a Chartered Accountant.
Delhi High Court in the case of Agya Ram vs. CIT held that there is difference between lease income and license income and when the deed of agreement specifically worded that income will be license income for assessee’s factory premises given on rent then the treatment made by the assessee of considering the same as business income to be prevailed over the general view of the AO that assessee is earning rental income assessable as Income from House Property.
