Dividend is not exempt under Section 10(34) read with Section 115-O because the companies from whom the assessee received the dividend has not paid dividend distribution tax. His claim is that the dividend received by the assessee company is exempt on account of mutuality
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26(SC) and decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Escorts Finance Ltd. (2009) 226 CTR (Del) 105 wherein it was held that where facts are clearly disclosed in the return
In the case of the assessee, summons issued by the Assessing Officer to the shareholder companies were duly served upon them and the shareholder companies responded to the Assessing Officer by affirming the investment made
Tribunal has come to the conclusion that for the purpose of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as a result of search assessments made u /s 153A, original return of income filed u/s 139 cannot be considered. It was held that concealment of income has to be seen with reference to additional income brought to tax over and above the income returned by the assesee in response to notice issued u/s 153A
On careful consideration of above contention, we are of the view that there may be a substantive assessment without any protective assessment but there can not be any protective assessment/addition without a substantive assessment/addition, meaning thereby there has to be some substantive assessment/addition first which enables the AO to make a protective assessment/addition.
A survey proceedings was carried out in the middle of the accounting year (on 1.12.2006) in the case of AHS Joint Venture, the sister concerns of the assessee firm. During the course of survey there was no incriminating material nor undisclosed income found in the hands of the assessee
The assessee is an individual. The return of income was filed on 29.7.2009 declaring an income of Rs. 36,04,069/- and agricultural income of Rs. 10,25,000/-. The assessment was taken up for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act.
Even if the reopening is sustained, the primary burden that income has escaped assessment is on the shoulder of the assessing officer and after discharging this burden only, the onus shifts to the shoulder of the assessee.
Assessee entered into transactions of payment of job work charges to a related party, viz., M/s Razormed Inc. during the financial year relevant to assessment year under consideration without obtaining prior approval of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of section 297 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Hon’ble ITAT Delhi has held in the case of ITO(E) Vs. S.D.College Society (Lahore) that where the capital expenditure has been treated to have been applied for the object of the trust, allowance of deduction on account of depreciation will not amount to double deduction?
