Income Tax : In the Case of Sapient Consulting Limited vs. DCIT, ITAT Delhi relying upon the order of Jurisdictional High Court held that frami...
Income Tax : In the case of Shashi Gupta vs. ITO, the Delhi Tribunal while considering the effective date of transfer of immovable property for...
Income Tax : In the case of Shree Hari Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, the Kolkata Tribunal on the issue of disallowance of alleged excess consu...
Custom Duty : In the Case of M/s GMR Energy Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the appeal of...
Corporate Law : In the case of Shamsher singh verma vs. State of Haryana, the Apex court on the point of admissibility of evidence held that the â...
The assessee company was engaged in the business of real estate development. Vide order of Hon’ble High Court, 19 Group companies engaged in similar business were merged in the assessee company w.e.f 01.04.1999.
The present case is related to search & seizure action carried out in case of Sh. S.K. Gupta (‘third party’) in respect of companies and other business entities which were controlled by him or owned by him or different individuals connected with him.
However, where the fundamental transaction is shown to be a sham transaction, the same cannot necessarily be accepted as genuine merely because a broker’s confirmation and invoices have been produced. Given the facts of this case, the decisions referred to by CIT(A)
Mistake apparent on the record u/s 154 must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions.
The petitioner by letter dated 17th November, 2011 had disclosed a foreign bank account which existed with the HSBC Private Bank, Geneva, Switzerland to the Director of Income Tax (Investigation-II). The peak amount lying in the said account during the year ending 31st March, 2007 was around US$ 1.3 million.
It is an admitted fact, in the present case that the Department has failed to supply the assessee the copy of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company, the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
The condition precedent for exercising the revisional power under section 263 of the Act is that the order under revision should not only be erroneous, but such erroneous order should result in prejudice to the interests of the Revenue.
On this undisclosed income, A.O. vide penalty order, levied penalty of Rs.2.5 crore u/s 271AAA mainly for the reason of non disclosure of the particulars of income in the statement filed u/s 132(4) by the assessee.
Document found during search was a third party document which was neither in the handwriting of the assessee nor bears her signature. Its inference has to be taken as stated by the person who possessed the document.
Whether the assessee company charged a higher premium or not, should not have been the subject matter of the enquiry in the first instance Instead, the issue was whether the amount invested by the share applicants were from legitimate sources.
