In further held that Once the assessee has been found to have made a business investment by way, of shares in related line of business, the said investment though held by way of shares in the said company cannot be subjected to disallowance under section 14A of the Act
The dictum laid down in case of Rubber Udyog Vikas (P) Ltd. is that incorrect claim would not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars unless it is established that assesee has acted with malafide intention.
The principles of natural justice are those which have been laid out by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of an individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights.
It seems CAs are under attack from all parts of the world for good or not so good reasons. Recently CAG in its report Criticised CAs for alleged Mistakes in Tax Audit Report and signing of Tax Audit Reports more than the prescribed limit.
Admittedly the assessment for the year under consideration has been completed on the basis of notice under Section 153C dt. 14.9.2010. Notice has been issued in the name of M/s Image Credit & Portfolio Ltd. That the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that it is a case of frivolous double addition on deliberate misconception of the facts. He took us through the year-end financial statements of the assessee and its computation of income to demonstrate that the impugned addition
It is settled law that that frequency and magnitude of transaction are also important factor to decide whether the transaction is business transaction or investment transaction. Now in our considered opinion, the magnitude of share transaction in this case does call for any enquiry
In sunbeam Auto case Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that though revision can be made in a case when there is lack of enquiry in the order, however, inadequate inquiries cannot be a basis of revision as it depends on the perception of the officer exercising assessment powers.
We have heard rival submission and perused the material on record. It is not disputed that the assessee had started the business of trading in shares from A.Y. 2007-08. For A.Y. 2007-08, assessee had earned profit of Rs.7,73,143/- which has been declared as “business income”
The only issue here is the addition of Rs.60 lacs made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained credit on account of the share application money. On going through the facts of the case, we notice that assessee has filed the relevant details which it could have filed in support of its contention
