Merely because the assessee had sold the shares at face value in a distressed situation it could not be presumed that the assessee had engineered the transaction to manage its tax liability. Therefore, AO was not justified in disallowing the claim of assessee for set off of long-term capital loss on sale of unquoted equity shares against long-term capital gain on the sale of property.
Where overseas HO was not liable to pay any tax on interest remitted by assessee, there was no obligation to deduct TDS under section 195(1) on such remittance because TDS provisions are attracted only when such remittance results in taxable income.
Priyatam Plaschem Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) In this case ITAT explains Law on whether share capital/ share premium received by a Company from investors can be assessed as ‘unexplained cash credit’ in the light of judgements of the Courts and Tribunal. In the case in hand Considering the facts of the case, in […]
Holding period should be computed from the date of issue of the allotment letter and not from the date of the conveyance deed (Rasiklal M. Parikh vs. ACIT 393 ITR 536 (Bom) distinguished)
PCIT Vs Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) Merely filing of an SLP from the order of CIT Vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 394 ITR 73 would not make the order of this Court bad in law or give a license to the Revenue to proceed on the basis that the order is stayed and/or in […]
Virvati Devi Vs CIT (ITAT Delhi) The Ld. CIT(A) correctly noted that possession of the property in question was not transferred at the time of Agreement to Sale. After the Agreement to Sale the SDM vide order dated 26.02.2009 changed the land use and declared the land as non- agricultural. The sale deed dated 24.03.2009 was […]
Loesche India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Add. CIT (ITAT Delhi) The record reveals that the assessee had paid the insurance premiums of the employees’ family members in terms of employment Rules framed by the assessee-company there for. Therefore, it can hardly be said that the impugned expenditure were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose […]
Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. Vs The State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) The only question that we have to consider is whether this concessional rate of duty could be availed of by the petitioner from 24.08.2017 to 13.10.2017. The intervening period where the taxable person under MGST Act does not continue to be […]
Assessee has failed to disclose the identity of the recipient of gifts either during the assessment proceedings or during the appellate proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) has also examined the records and found that the assessee also failed to establish the business exigencies of the appellant vis-a-vis the aforesaid gifts.
Shree Rama Newsprint Limited Vs. Union Of India (Gujarat High Court) Gujarat High Court on 18/09/2018 grants interim stay on the retrospective amendment in case of inverted duty refunds whereby refund on input services was denied by notification dated 13-06-2018 w.e.f. 01-07-2017. This is welcome news for persons consuming job work and other service for […]
