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).
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.
