The appellant has assailed the legality and validity of the impugned judgement of conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and sentence of life imprisonment which has been awarded to him by the trial Court in ST No.379/99 for committing murder of deceased Etwa Ram.
Fact that direct one to one relationship between purchases and sales have not been established, I am of the view that estimation of 12.5% as profit embedded in impugned purchases shown from these tainted parties and adding the same to the total income returned, would meet the ends of justice.
These Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenge a common order dated 11th October, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The common impugned order deleted the penalty imposed upon the Respondent Assessee for the Assessment Years 200304, 200405, 200506 and 2006-07.
he factum of issuance of notice within time is to be proved on query by the authority whose jurisdiction is challenged for want of The aggrieved party cannot be asked to lead negative evidence in support of its claim.
AO declined assessee’s claim of deduction on the plea that the profit claimed as deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act was not derived from the housing project but from sale of unutilized FSI.
Where assessee paid amount to deliveryman to deliver the newspapers and delivery persons were nothing but casually engaged labourers and they have no other work to perform and assessee had wrongly debited the amount as commission in its books, AO was not justified in making dis allowance under section 40(a)(ia) for no TDS by only giving weight age to nomenclature and without seeing the real purpose for payment.
TDS rates are fixed on the basis of nature of the services or contract and not on the basis of the number of recipients of the payment. When the intention of both the parties is clear that the payments shall be made for each of the service independently, then, the services are clearly ascertainable and divisible. The TDS rates for each of the services would therefore vary.
AO failed to appreciate that company is an independent entity and distinct person. The action of the company will not have any bearing on the shareholders. AO has no jurisdiction to charge anything in the case of assessee over the dealings of any other person.
Akshay Jhunjhunwala & Anr. Vs Union of India (Calcutta High Court) The petitioners have assailed the vires of Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that, the second respondent is a corporate debtor in respect of whom a proceeding under the […]
Once the shares of the beneficiaries are found to be determinable, the income is to be taxed of that respective sharer or the beneficiaries in the hands of the beneficiary and not in the hands of the Trustees which has already been shown in the present case.
