Although the powers of the CIT(A) were co-terminus with that of the powers of AO, yet, it had jurisdiction only on those items which had been considered by AO irrespective of the fact whether the issue was subject matter of appeal or not.
In our view, the said Section can be applied if there is a transfer of shares in favour of a Firm or a Company. For the transfer of shares, we agree with the assessee that there must be a transferor and transferee and transferred assets i.e., shares. In the case of amalgamation, it cannot be said that there is a transfer of shares as there is only statutory vesting of the assets by virtue of the Scheme.
Reassessment order passed without disposal of objections raised by assessee by passing a speaking order by AO was illegal and invalid.
Shri Vinod Kumar Chugh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Section 50C could be invoked only when sale had taken place during the year. As the sale of vacant plot by assessee stood completed in the year 1991, there was no question of invoking the provision of section 50C for taxing the long term capital gains. […]
ITO Vs Kuber Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) There is no dispute that the notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee in respect of assessment years, beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years as contemplated under the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 151 of the […]
ITO Vs M/s Yadu Steels & Power Pvt.Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) Under Section 68 onus is upon assessee to prove three ingredients, i.e., identity and creditworthiness of credit entries. As to how onus can be discharged would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. It is expected of both sides – assessee and Ld.AO, to […]
E.I. DuPont India P. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi) AO had taken the month to be the British calendar month as defined in Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act and it is only on that premise, he calculated one day in March and two days in May as two full months and calculated interest […]
The Delhi High Court in case of Bharti Mishra held that section 54F prescribes appropriation of sale consideration within one year before the date of transfer of original asset, two years from the date of transfer or construction of new property within three years from the date of transfer. However, the Act does not prescribe any condition as to the date of commencement of construction of house property which may be commenced even before the date of transfer of original asset.
TDS u/s 194H was not applicable to bank guarantee commission as the same did not fall into clause (i) of Explanation to section 194H and exemption was provided under section 194A(2)(iiia) in respect of any payment made to any banking company to which any Banking Regulation applies.
The provisions of section 2(24)(xi) read with section 28(vi), it is evident that the amount of bonus on Keyman Insurance Policy is to be taxed on receipt basis only.
