Although the powers of the CIT(A) were co-terminus with that of the powers of AO, yet, it had jurisdiction only on those items which had been considered by AO irrespective of the fact whether the issue was subject matter of appeal or not.
ACIT Vs Shri Akshay Rajesh Samdariya (ITAT Pune) The solitary issue raised in the appeal by the Revenue and Cross objections by the assessee is against addition deleted/confirmed on account of bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer in re-assessment proceedings made addition of Rs. 2,78,55,984/- as bogus purchases purportedly made by the assessee. In first appeal […]
In re Bandai Namco India private Limited (GST AAR Maharashtra) Question: – Applicable GST Rate on operating gaming zone in one of leading malls in Mumbai? Applicant submitted that they are engaged in providing amusement facility services and also running family entertainment facility center in Oberoi mail Mumbai. To conduct the business as aforesaid it […]
In re Bauli India Bakes and Sweets Private Limited (GST AAR Maharashtra) From the collective readings of provisions viz. – Clause (63) and (62) of Section 2 of the CGST Act that, the question enumerated at (d) of Section 97(2), supra does not deal with the admissibility of the credit of taxes paid other than […]
Pr. CIT Vs Khaitan Chemicals Ltd. (Rajsthan High Court) HC observed that the issue of classification of income on the sale of shares as business income or as short-term capital gains is to be decided the facts of each case. The tests to be applied for such determination is provided in CBDT Circular No.4 of […]
Udit Kalra Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) In the case there was a specific information that assessee has indulged in non-genuine and bogus capital gain obtained from the transactions of purchase and sale of shares of M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd., a Mumbai based company. It is noticed that the purchase transaction has been done off […]
Mandhana Industries Ltd Vs Pr. CIT (Bombay High Court) On reading the provisions contained in Chapter XIX-A of the Act, a clear picture that emerges is that an assessee can apply for settlement of a case as long as same is pending. Once such an application is filed (and in case of application filed before […]
PCIT Tax Vs M/s. Oil Industry Development Board (Supreme Court) Hon’ble supreme court held that in the absence of any exempt income, disallowance under Section 14-A of the Act of any amount was not permissible. FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT Delay condoned. In view of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income […]
ITAT relied upon the ruling of this Court in Cheminvest Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, (2015) 378 ITR 33 which ruled in the absence of any exempt income, disallowance under Section 14-A of the Act of any amount was not permissible.
In our view, the said Section can be applied if there is a transfer of shares in favour of a Firm or a Company. For the transfer of shares, we agree with the assessee that there must be a transferor and transferee and transferred assets i.e., shares. In the case of amalgamation, it cannot be said that there is a transfer of shares as there is only statutory vesting of the assets by virtue of the Scheme.
