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.
CC&CE Vs. Beekay Enterprises (CESTAT Delhi) – Penalty can be imposed within the framework of Section 11AC of the Act. Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules which deals with penalty also can be applied subject to provisions of Section 11AC. As indicated above, penalty can be imposed when non payment or short payment of duty etc. was actuated by fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder “with intent to evade payment of duty”. Even if a case of suppression of facts or contravention of any provision were made out, it is clear that suppression or contravention per se would not justify imposition of penalty unless it was made intentionally in order to evade payment of duty.
R. B. K. Securities vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) -Even prior to the amendment to s. 43(5) by the Finance Act 2005 w.e.f 1.4.2006, dealings in Futures & Options and other derivatives products cannot be treated as speculative transactions as they are special kind of transactions, not involving purchase and sale of shares and consequently the loss arising therefrom cannot be treated as a speculation loss.
Writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 245HA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under which the petitioners’ applications before the Settlement Commission are to be treated as having abated on account of failure of the Settlement Commission to pass orders under Section 245D(4) of the Act on or before 31.03.2008. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court was seized of an identical issue, the petitions were disposed of with the direction that the parties would abide by the decision of the Supreme Court and in the meanwhile the assessment proceedings would be stayed. Comed Laboratories vs. UOI (Gujarat High Court)
CIT vs. Vishnu Industrial Gases (Delhi High Court) – Where the department had not disputed that the expenditure was deductible in principle but was only disputing the year in which the deduction could be allowed HELD, castigating the department, that as the tax rates were the same in both years, the department should not fritter away its energies in raising questions as to the year of deductibility/taxability.
The agreement for sale dated 24.06.1977 was substituted by the collaboration agreement dated 06.10.1981 and the agreement to sell dated 06.10.1981. There was no interest, much less, any right transferred in the property in favour of SSPL by the assessees and hence, as observed above, there was no transfer of a right in property as contemplated under Section 2 (47) of the Act.
