In view of these glaring facts, the assessment of Smt. Jaya Agrawal and the fact that the relevant purchases for AY 2004-05 have been held to be genuine, we see no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting these additions. On the issues of Shri Chokshi, Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Goldstar Finvest Pvt. Ltd., a catena of judgments from ITAT, Mumbai and Ahmedabad is available in favour of the assessee which view also stands confirmed by Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Shri Mukesh Moralia.
These appeals raise an interesting issue with respect to interplay of Article 9 of India Netherlands Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and TP adjustments under domestic TP law.
By adopting tax planning, long-term loss on sale of shares suffered by assessee on off-market sale transactions can legitimately be adjusted against long-term capital gains on sale of land.
Provisos to Section 50C(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01/04/2017 are to be treated as curable in nature and would apply with retrospective effect from 01/04/2003 i.e. the date from which Section 50C was introduced.
If the officer is not empowered to administer oath, then by scoring off the sections in the heads of the stationery would not authorize officer to administer oath and take statement under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 during the survey. Therefore, this statement is only a piece of information, and does not carry any evidentiary value.
Assessee being developer of SEZ was eligible for deduction under section 80-IAB for income earned from operation and maintenance of SEZ.
Clearly, unless a receipt is not an income, there is no occasion for the provisions of Section 56(1) or 56(2) coming into play. Section 56 does not decide what is an income. What it holds is that if there is an income, which is not taxable under any of the heads under Section 14, i.e item A to E, it is taxable under the head income from other sources’.
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of ACIT vs. Rupam Impex that the AO has justified the mistake on record on the ground that it is attributed to the assessee. The income tax proceedings are not adversarial proceedings.
Samta Kamal Drolia Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Assessee has received Rs. 2.20 Lakh from His Step Father and contended that he received the amounts in gift. The ld.AR has rejected the explanation of the assessee on the ground that the assessee is step-son of Donor, therefore, their relationship does not fall within the ambit of […]
The assessee’s sole substantive ground challenges correctness of section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs. 5 lacs imposed by the Assessing Officer as affirmed in the lower appellate proceedings. He had filed return on 30-04-2007.
