Reassessment under section 147 on the basis of report of Investigation Wing without conducting further enquiry on the same was invalid and liable to be set aside.
Where assessee placed sufficient documentary evidences before A.O. to prove genuineness of the transaction of sale of shares such as copies of bank statement, Demat account, share purchase documents and share certificate., etc., and no material had been brought on record against assessee to disprove the claim of assessee, addition made under section 68 on account of bogus long-term capital gain on sale of shares could not be sustained.
Expenses on medical camps organized with tea and snacks, ball pens, purchased for distribution to Doctors and Hospitals, with logo of the assessee company, organizing cardiac camps, Doctors meetings for various products for awareness of their product were only on account of business promotion expenses which were allowable under the provisions of section 37 the I.T. Act.
Assessee’s claim for exemption under section 10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares could not be held as bogus on the ground of information from Investigation Wing in case assessee had filed evidences like transaction statement of stock broker, contract notes transactions statement of Demat acount, statement of account from brokers, and bank statement, etc., to prove genuineness of transactions of purchase and sale of shares.
Amount paid to foreign lawyer by assessee for representing its case before foreign court was not taxable as fees for technical services (FTS) in India as legal services could not be treated as FTS as it was a professional services which was outside the scope of Section 9(1)(vii).
Where there was an option under Rule 11UA(2) to determine the FMV by either the ‘DCF Method’ or the ‘NAV Method’, AO had no jurisdiction to discard the valuation report of the CA mainly on the ground that valuation of equity shares carried out by assessee was based on projection of revenue which did not match with the actual revenues of the subsequent years. Moreover, top and independent investors had invested in assessee’s start-up proved that the FMV as determined by assessee was proper.
While on search nothing adverse was found so as to prove that documents filed during original assessment proceedings were false or untrue, AO on same set of material could not take a different view than already taken at the time of original assessment merely because a search had taken place.
Where land was stock in trade in the books of account, but, there was a complete bar on assessee as per the Notification of the Ministry of Defence to raise any construction or to do any business activity therein, the land in question could not not be treated as stock in trade but as a capital asset in nature determining holding period from the date of acquisition.
Payment received by assessee for supply of software products to IBM India Pvt. Limited without giving right to reproduction and commercial exploitation did not fall within the ambit of’ royalty’.
Addition under section 68 on account of bogus capital gains from penny stocks was not justified as AO had not conducted any independent and separate enquiry to prove that the transactions carried out by the assessee were not genuine or that the documents were not authentic and assessee had successfully discharged the onus cast upon him by provisions of section 68.
