If the assessee is not able to give satisfactory explanation as to the “nature and source” of a sum found credited in his books, the sum may be treated as the “undisclosed income” of the assessee. The initial burden is on the assessee to explain the “nature and source” of the credit and to do so, the assessee is required to prove (a) Identity of the shareholder; (b) Genuineness of transaction; and (c) credit worthiness of shareholders; If the assessee has produced documents like PAN Card, bank account details or details from the bankers the onus shifts upon the AO and it is for him to reach the shareholders and the AO cannot burden the assessee merely on the ground that summons issued to the investors were returned back with the endorsement “not traceable”; There is an additional burden on the Department to show that even if share applicants did not have the means to make investment, the investment made by them actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. In the absence of such finding, addition cannot be made u/s 68 in the hands the assessee.
Delhi High Court in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. DIT held that the payments made for using capacity in a transponder for uplinking/down linking data do not constitute ‘royalty’ under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The High Court held that the customers did not make payments for the use of any process or equipment, since control over the process or equipment was with the taxpayer and not with the customers.
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) – Leviability-Expenditure claimed by assessee disallowed by Tribunal-Concealment penalty cannot be imposed merely on the ground that Tribunal disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee.
For the purposes of section 115JB of the Act, the term gloss brought forward’ can only mean losses on the last day of the immediately preceding year and no other meaning can be given to it. In the case of CIT v. Sumi Motherson Innovative Engineerin
“281B. Provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases. (1) Where, during the pendency of any proceeding for the assessment of any income or for the assessment or reassessment of any income which has escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interests of the revenue it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the Chief Commissioner, Commissioner, Director General or Director , by order in writing, attach provisionally any property belonging to the assessee in the manner provided in the Second Schedule.
Sections 147, 148 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Whether HC can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 pertaining to sufficiency of reasons for formation of the belief u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act. – Assessee’s appeal dismissed
The Delhi High Court has inter alia held in the case of Delhi Towers Ltd. V. G.N.C.T. of Delhi [2010] 159 Comp Cas 129 (Del) that an order passed by the Court in terms of the provisions of Section 391 read with Section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 approving a scheme of amalgamation of companies is “conveyance” under Section 2(10) of Indian Stamp Act 1899 [ISA]. The High Court further held that such approved scheme of amalgamation would be an “instrument” under Section 2(14) of the ISA chargeable to stamp duty.
Though the High Court was dealing with a contention that the depreciation on goodwill could be a possible view and agreed with that view, the decision highlights that it may be possible to claim depreciation on goodwill where the facts demonstrate t
Though in Section 68 proceedings, the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee yet once he proves the identity of the creditors/share applicants by either furnishing their PAN number or income tax assessment number and shows the genuineness of transaction by showing money in his books either by account payee cheque or by draft or by any other mode, then the onus of proof would shift to the Revenue.
The above ruling provides that tax holiday under section 10A would be available to a foreign office, i.e. a branch carrying on-site software development only if it is a liaison office. An independent branch carrying out full -fledged marketing operat
