It is a well settled proposition that the question as to whether a person has acted as a trader or as an investor in respect of share transactions, has to be decided on the basis of various factors listed out by the CBDT and Honourable Courts.
Assessee was allotted a residential plot on 19.01.2004 in Sector-105, Noida through lottery on payment of allotment money of Rs.1,30,000/-. The total purchase price of the plot was Rs. 16,75,000/-. 2. The assessee on 28.02.2004 entered into an Agreement to sell in respect of this plot with M/s Rosebud Construction Pvt. Ltd through its Director […]
(i) We hold that the Parliament was fully competent to enact Section 139AA of the Act and its authority to make this law was not diluted by the orders of this Court. (ii) We do not find any conflict between the provisions of Aadhaar Act and Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act inasmuch as when interpreted harmoniously, they operate in distinct fields.
It is an well established proposition of law that being penal in nature, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are invoked only when there is evidence beyond doubt that there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof on the part of the assessee towards the tax alleged to be evaded.
Assessee in all these appeals is Honda SIEL Cars Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Assessee). Question of law that is raised is also identical. Five appeals are filed only because of the reason that same issue has occurred in different Assessment Years, i.e., for the years 1999-2000, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2005-2006.
The provision contained in section 138 of the N.I. Act makes it clear that it is not every return of a cheque unpaid which leads to prosecution of an offence under the said provision of law.
In the instant case, it is the assessment of person allegedly searched, which is disputed before us, unlike the notice issued for the assessment of `other person’ before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even otherwise, the issue of invalidity of the search warrant in that case was not raised at any point of time prior to […]
The ITAT Mumbai in Citicorp Investment Bank (Singapore) Ltd v. DCIT, held that the sale consideration received by a Singapore based Company on sale of debt instrument is not taxable as capital gain under the Income Tax Act in view of article 13(4) of the India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
The issue that a particular expenditure incurred by assessee is a capital expenditure or a revenue one has remained controversial. The facts & circumstances of each case differ. However, the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this respect guide in resolving the issue.
ACIT Vs Metallizing Equipment Co. (P) Ltd. (ITAT Jodhpur) In Hero Cycles Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (1999) 63 TTJ (Chd) 665. Tribunal, Chandigarh, has held that the expenditure on telephone installed at the residences of directors is not covered by section 38(2) and expenses in case of a company cannot be for non-business purposes and the […]
