Shri Harish Narinder Salve Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Undoubtedly, assessee is a noted international lawyer who has set up a scholarship for creating his visibility in international arena and his social standing. The assessee has specifically submitted that it has increased lot of value of the CV of the assessee and the government of Singapore […]
Before a scheme can be regarded as a lottery, there must be the element of distribution of prizes which should be by chance or lot and such distribution should be among those who had paid a price for participating in the scheme. Mere gratuitous distribution without any price having been paid by the participants for acquiring the chance and receiving a prize that is ultimately distributed, would not amount to a lottery.
In view of the guidelines issued by the CBDT in Instruction 3/2003 the Tribunal was right in observing that by not making reference to the TPO, the Assessing Officer had breached the mandatory instructions issued by the CBDT.
No doubt assessee has meticulously completed the paper work by routing his entire investment through banking channel but the results thereof are altogether beyond human probabilities. Because neither in the past nor in the subsequent years, assessee has indulged into any such investment having huge windfall. Had the assessee been so intelligent qua the intricacies of the share market, he would have definitely undertaken such risk taking activities in the past or future by making such investment in the unknown stock. So, we are of the considered view that what appears to be apparent in making investment by the assessee in unknown stock is not real when examined the whole transaction of sale and purchase of the stock with huge windfall to the assessee.
CIT Vs Laxman Das Khandelwal (Supreme Court of India) S. 143(2)/ 292BB: The failure to issue a notice u/s 143(2) renders the assessment order void even if the assessee has participated in the proceedings. S. 292BB does not save complete absence of notice. For S. 292BB to apply, the notice must have emanated from the […]
Where the assessee had clear intention of being an investor and had held shares by way of investment, assessee was to be treated as investor and any gain arising out of transfer of shares was to be treated as ‘capital gain’ and not ‘business income’.
Pr. CIT Vs Shreeji Exhibitors (Bombay High Court) The impugned order of the Tribunal noted the fact that the assessee’s activity of letting out building premises is its business activity. This, the Tribunal observed it is clear from objects of the respondent as set out in its partnership deed viz. to deal with properties i.e. to […]
we find that that the applicant’s case is covered under the tax rate of 12%, under Heading 9954 (Construction Services), (v) (da) of above mentioned Notification No. 11/2017, as amended since the project undertaken by them falls under the definition of Affordable Housing as also claimed by them in their application
In re M/s Nipro India Corporation Private Limited (GST AAR Maharashtra) Question 1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the product Dialyzer be treated as ‘Disposable sterilized dialyzer or micro barrier of artificial kidney’ as mentioned under Entry No. 255 of Schedule I to Notification Number 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 28 June 2017 […]
In re Moksh Agarbatti Co.(GST AAR Gujarat) Question 1: The tax payer offers one unit of Dhoop with a pack of Agarbatti (consisting of 10 pieces of Agarbatti). Can the tax payer claim credit of taxes paid on a) inputs used for manufacture of Dhoop? b) Purchase of dhoop from a third party vendor? Answer: […]
