This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
S. 2(22)(e) not applies to amount advanced for investment on behalf of company
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Income Tax Officer Vs Adarsh Kapoor (ITAT Delhi)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Related Assessment Year
- 2008- 09
- Courts
- All ITAT, ITAT Delhi
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
the stand of the assessee has been that a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- was given to the assessee company, consequent upon the Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the said Company authorizing the assessee to invest on behalf of the company in units of M/s Reliance Equity Advantage Funds. This was due to the reasons that at that point of time the company did not meet the requirements of the Know Your Customer (KYC) Scheme (for Money Laundering Measures) and also did not have a PAN Card which was mandatory for the purpose of applying of units of Mutual Funds.
We find that in this case the a...
