This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Bikaner dated 20.05.2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13.
Fact that the Assessee is a part of DuPont, a global conglomerate which had in 2011 $37.96 billion in net sales and $6.253 billion as operating profit , cannot be said to be an irrelevant factor in considering whether any genuine hardship was undergone by the Petitioner.
No technical services were involved in payment of carriage charges made by the assessee for broadcasting of the programmes produced by the assessee. The assessee produced various types of programmes/ serials and news and these were telecasted/ broadcasted through Multi System Operators. Payments in this regard were made as carriage charges for which payment of tax was deductible under section 194C of the Income Tax Act.
In B.R Petrochem Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO, the division bench of the Madras High Court held that mere furnishing of identity of shareholders by the asseessee would not sufficient to discharge their onus under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. While confirming the addition made against the assessee, the bench ruled that the assessee must prove the genuineness and credit worthiness of the creditors in order to shift the burden to the department.
Undoubtedly, prior to the amendment made by Finance (Nos.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01/04/2015, the language of section 54 of the Act required the assessee to invest the capital gain in a residential property.
Impugned order of assessment was made based on the Web Report, the Assessing Authority is not justified in passing the impugned order of assessment, without furnishing the details of such report and without conducting any enquiry at all levels.
Corpus fund which is meant for specific purpose to meet out capital expenditure could not be part of annual receipts of educational institution, even if no registration u/s 12AA have been granted.
It is clear from the reading of Section 3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997, that whenever complaints are received from a number of depositors against a Financial Establishment, which defaults or fails to return the deposits or fails to provide services for which the deposits have […]
What they believe to be information is a post circulated on WhatsApp platform or an alleged translation in a website. The alleged information is not claimed to be true to their knowledge. It is not even stated in the petition as to how the petitioners have formed a reasonable belief that the alleged post or the translation could be true or have any basis.
Decision of the arbitral tribunal to pierce the corporate veil is fundamentally flawed. It falls foul of the fundamental policy of Indian law that recognises that a company is an independent juristic person.
