Merely because other clubs follow the very same accounting policy, it cannot be said to be beyond scrutiny or verification as to the correctness and completeness of the accounting practice followed, and there is any deficiency in such accounting practice or policy, it can very well be tinkered with howsoever universally followed such policy is; there is no proposition in law to force the revenue to accept the accounting system
It is also to be noted that Dr. Pal at that point of time tried to distinguish the said judgment in the Hamilton’s case (supra) with the judgment of Hope (India) Ltd. (supra) and submitted that there is no inconsistency in the view taken by the subsequent Division Bench in the Hope (India) Ltd case (supra) and in this subsequent decision the Hon’ble Division Bench duly considered the judgment delivered in the Hamilton’s case
n this decision, vide order dated 15.9.2008, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that even a decision of Apex Court or Jurisdictional High Court rendered subsequent to the Tribunal decision can render the said Tribunal decision liable of rectification of mistake apparent from record. In view of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, we are inclined to dismiss this appeal by the Revenue on account of tax effect, when on similar facts Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has dismissed the Revenue’s case on tax effect.
Since the tax due had already been paid which was not less than the tax payable on the returned income which was accepted, the question of levy of interest Under Section 234A does not arise.
9. Section 153A would be applicable where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of accounts or other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A of the Act after 31st May, 2003. Therefore, before invoking the provisions of section 153A of the Act it would be necessary to comply with the provisions contained under section 132(1) of the Act. Salient feature of section 132(1)
Avaya Global Connect vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Where the assessee transferred its undertaking under a scheme of demerger which provided that neither the assessee nor its shareholders would receive any consideration from the transferee company as the value of the liabilities taken over were more than the value of the assets taken over and the assessee treated the difference between the said liabilities and assets as a capital reserve and the question arose whether such difference was assessable to tax
Therefore, there cannot be a formula which had no connection with the value of the individual assets and the liabilities. The price was determined that of the business and therefore, there is no question of picking up any portion of such price and charging its capital gains. It appears to us that before transfer of the company, the said company had issued subscribed share capital and the original share certificates
The Joint Venture can be treated as an association of persons (A.O.P.) in consonance with section 2(31)(v) read with the Explanation to section 2 of the Act and liable to be assessed as such under the Income-tax Act. All the partners of J.V. have joined in for common purpose on their own volition to produce income which is shared in certain ratio. The J.V. is to be taxed in the status of an association of persons @ 41% net basis.
Keeping in view that the Income-tax Act, 1961 was amended by the Finance Act, 2005 permitting an individual to deposit to the maximum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in any of the specified schemes, the concerned authorities should take steps to amend clause 3 of the PPF Scheme in terms of section 80C of the Income-tax Act.
Unlock the Calcutta High Court’s perspective on Section 68 and Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Alpine Investments. Dive into the court’s thorough examination of the matter, emphasizing the significance of documented evidence such as contract notes and bills in supporting share transactions. Despite initial suspicions, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal (ITA No.620 of 2008), asserting that transactions backed by strong documentary evidence cannot be dismissed on mere suspicion. Explore the detailed order/judgment to understand the court’s reasoning, background of the case, the search and seizure operation, and subsequent assessment proceedings. Gain valuable insights into how the court weighed conflicting statements, including the deposition of Mr. Kamlesh A. Rupani, and upheld the authenticity of share transactions. Stay informed about the court’s dismissal of any substantial question of law in this matter.
