Income Tax : Explore the implications of the PCIT Vs I.A. Hydro Energy case regarding loan conversion to equity under Section 56(2)(viib) of th...
Income Tax : The issue involves a subscription amount of Rs. 1 Crores, with a dividend rate of 0.10% over a tenure of 20 years. This brief exam...
Income Tax : Unlock the complexities of development rights and their tax implications under India's Income Tax Act, 1961. Delve into Section 56...
Income Tax : Budget 2023 brings non-resident investors within the ambit of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act to eliminate tax avoidance possibilit...
Income Tax : The issue was whether a notice granting less than the statutory minimum time is valid. The tribunal held that giving less than 7 d...
Income Tax : The case addresses whether reassessment is valid when approval is granted by the wrong authority. ITAT held that sanction under Se...
Income Tax : The Tribunal dismissed the challenge to reassessment proceedings as no arguments were presented by the assessee. The ruling highli...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held the assessment invalid as no mandatory notice under Section 143(2) was issued. The key takeaway is that absence ...
Income Tax : The case examined whether share premium could be taxed without proof of unaccounted funds. The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vi...
ITAT Nagpur held that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) (b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act came into statute by Finance Act 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2014 i.e., A.Y.2014-15. Accordingly, provisions cannot be made applicable to date of agreement before 01.04.2014.
ITAT Raipur held that reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act without any fresh material, amounts to mere change of opinion, and hence the same is not sustainable in law.
ITAT Delhi held that re-assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act initiated due to change of opinion without having any fresh material on record is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Thereafter, PCIT called for the assessment records and examined the proceedings. CIT(A) after going through the case records and assessment records took a view that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Assessee, aggrieved by the decision, appealed to the CIT (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of AO. Assessee dissatisfied with the order of CIT(A) appealed before Tribunal.
ITAT Delhi held that the interest on compensation or on enhanced compensation cannot be considered as compensation and shall be chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act justified due to difference stamp duty value of the property and sale consideration. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee allowed.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance under section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act sustained due to wide fluctuation in value of share within a period of less than 5 months and that too within same financial year without accurate explanation.
Kerala High Court held that considering merits of the matter while deciding application for condonation of delay for filing revised returns not justified.
ITAT Lucknow ruled that additions under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) are unsustainable without a valuation officer’s reference, directing deletion of ₹2.14 crore addition.
