Assessee has contended that the impugned property had been transferred to her daughter as a gift and therefore charging Long Term Capital Gains applying provisions of Section 50C is bad in law. In its written submission on behalf of the assessee, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has contended that the intention of the […]
Detailed investigations carried out by the assessing officer establish the position that the contributors to share capital were persons of insignificant means and their credit worthiness to have made the contributions has not been established.
Cash in hand referred to in Section 2(ea)(vi) of the Act represents only the personal cash of the assessee emanating from his personal balance sheet. It nowhere contemplated the inclusion of cash which is held as business asset.
Revised grounds of appeal were filed by the assessee, which are placed on record. Amongst various grounds of appeal taken by the assessee, main grievance and issue raised by the assessee-appellant before this Tribunal relates to validity of the proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
Ahmedabad bench of the ITAT observed that the activities of the Gujarat Environment Service Society are charitable in nature. The main issue before the Tribunal was that whether the assesse is entitled for benefit of section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 or not. Section 11(1)(a) is about exemptions related to charity.
M/s. Google India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) The present stay petition is filed seeking further extension of the stay of demand. Admittedly there is change of the circumstances from the first stay order, since this Tribunal had disposed of the appeal involving identical issue for earlier years against the assessee. Therefore, the principle […]
CIT Vs. Ms Flytxt Technology P. Ltd. (Kerala High Court) Admittedly, the assessee initially claimed the benefit of Section 10B which was allowed by the Assessing Officer. Only when the Commissioner was seized of the proceedings under Section 263, the assessee raised an alternative claim for the benefit of Section 10A. The Commissioner did not […]
Allahabad High Court on an application filed by CESTAT Bar Associationhas stayed the operation of the Notification dated 10-10-2017 providing for transfer of appeals from CESTAT Regional benches to the CESTAT bench at Delhi with the consent of the parties on the plea that such notification is without authority of law as the CESTAT cannot change the jurisdiction which is already carved out by the Union Cabinet and moreover, consent of parties does not confer jurisdiction.
Addition made on the basis of a print out taken from the computer of a third party without there being no other corroborative evidence brought on record to prove the fact that the payment mentioned in the seized material was actually received by the assessee, not sustainable.
Heard Mr.P. Rajkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
