DCIT Vs Shri Krishna Kumar Verma (ITAT Indore) Sections 68,69,69A,69B,69C and 69D may be called as Section 68 & 69 Family. However, they differ in as far as Burden of Proof is concerned. In sec 68, the onus is wholly upon the Assessee to explain the source of the entry. But in cases falling under […]
Calcutta High Court held that for earlier assessment years already tax in respect of sale of shares was treated and accepted as long term capital gains. Thus, when the shares were held to be investments and accepted as earlier AYs, it cannot be said to be not an investment in the current AY. Accordingly, profit taxable as capital gains and not business income.
ITAT Delhi held that addition is made on the basis of documents found from the separate search at another person. Accordingly, assessment should have been done under section 153C of the Income Tax Act and not under section 153A of the Income Tax Act.
NCLAT Chennai held that National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is not proper Fora to determine the controversies revolving around the attachment of property under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
Reopening of the assessment based on a different method of computation or application of the section was nothing else but a change of opinion as there was no failure to make a full and true disclosure ans the same was impermissible in law.
Shri Amar Singh Saharan Vs ITO (ITAT Jodhpur) Tribunal has adjudicated the appeal of the assessee on merits only and it was decided against the assessee. However, in Ground No. 2, the assessee has raised a legal ground. It is submitted that an identical legal ground raised by another assessee named Ashok Kumar Banthia vs. […]
ITAT Jaipur held that revenue has simply disallowed the expenditure in view of CBDT Circular no. 05/2012 dated 01.08.2012 without establishing the violation thereof. Accordingly, disallowance merely on presumption and assumption is unsustainable in law.
ITAT Kolkata held that addition towards share capital and share premium under section 68 of the Income Tax Act untenable as assessee discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribing companies and the genuineness of the transactions.
ITAT Delhi held that revisional power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act not invocable in case of inadequate inquiry, in fact, revisional power is invocable only in case of lack of inquiry.
CESTAT Delhi held that service charges for pre-payment or foreclosure of loan amount by the customer cannot be treated as taxable service and is not chargeable to service tax.
