An issue which had been examined in detail during original assessment itself, could not be re-examined in exercise of powers of reassessment, therefore, notice under section 148 was set aside.
Where assessee paid interest on term loan which had entirely been used for purpose of purchasing the assets for purpose of business which were hypothecated to bank and it had sufficient interest-free funds to take care of advances, the deduction under section 36(1)(iii) was allowable.
Assessee sold 3,10,000 shares and claimed resulting gains as exempt under section 10(38). AO denied the exemption on the ground that as the shares were not held by the assessee for more than 12 months period, therefore, same could not be considered as long-term capital assets.
This Court while deciding a Reference needs to keep in mind the limitations of its role. It does not sit in appeal over the decision making process of the Disciplinary Committee and the recommendations so made by the Council of the Institute. Hence in examining the Report and the recommendation of the Council it cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record or assess the findings of the Committee as an Appellate Authority.
Assessee’s contention that adding the entire amount of bogus purchases would give a completely distorted figure and the gross profit would be higher than the total turnover. Such bogus purchases were for off-setting the purchases from producers and agriculturists directly who would not have the billing facility. Only question seriously paused before us was, was the Tribunal justified in adopting the gross profit rate of 8% as against 25% adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals)?
Where on account of an inadvertent error, PAN of the deductee was wrongly mentioned by assessee, in TDS return, AO was not justified in not permitting the assessee to correct PAN of the deductee, putting the limitation of permitting corrections of only four characters. The case was, therefore, remanded.
Ptitioner has vehemently submitted that in present case compounding application of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that it is not the first offence of petitioner.
Mere allotment of PAN under section 139A of the Act would not make the allottee necessarily a separate entity for the purpose of assessment of tax. The statute recognizes certain eventualities where quite outside the requirement of payment of tax and for filing return of income, the Assessing Officer may allot a PAN to individual.
A change of religion and loss of caste was at one time considered as grounds for forfeiture of property and exclusion of inheritance. However, this has ceased to be the case after the passing of the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850. Section 1 of the Caste Disabilities Removal Act inter alia provides that if any […]
Justices Akil Khureshi and Biren Vaishnav, in a recent ruling, held that section 50C of the Income Tax Act is applicable to a case where even a case where the document evidencing transfer of the capital asset has not been presented for registration
