It was the duty of the A.O. to bring on record sufficient evidences and material to prove that the documents filed by the assessee were bogus, false or fabricated and the long term capital gain shown by him was actually his income from undisclosed sources.
These appeals arise from the order dated 30.3.2004 of the Madras High Court in WP No. 2198/2003 filed by the President of Madras Bar Association (MBA for short) challenging the constitutional validity of Chapters 1B and 1C of the Companies Act, 1956(`Act’ for short) inserted by Companies (Second Amendment) Act 2002 (`Amendment Act’ for short
The moot question that arises for our consideration in the present case is whether, on the facts of the present case, the interest earned by the assessee on fixed deposit is assessable as profit of the business of undertaking for the purpose of computing the deduction available to the undertaking under section 10A of the Act.
Section 147 authorizes and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for assessment year has escaped assessment. It is also well settled that words reason to believe used in section 147 of the Act are stronger than the words is satisfied.
The appellant/revenue has filed the above Tax Case Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Chennai, dated 27.04.2007 in ITA.No.1862/Mds/2004. 2. When the appeal came up for admission on 09.03.2010, this Court admitted the same on the following substantial questions of law:
The Petitioners herein filed Company Petition No.69 of 2006 before the Additional Principal Bench of the Company Law Board at Chennai under Sections 397, 398, 402 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging mismanagement and oppression by the majority shareholders of the first respondent Company. Various reliefs, including reconstitution of the Board
The challenge in this proceeding is to a notice issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nashik on 30 April, 2009 seeking to exercise the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The dispute in this case relates to assessment years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. On 30 April 2001, the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) constituted under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held that the purchase and sale of shares by the petitioner was in the ordinary course of its business and the income which resulted from this
Compensation including interest on cancellation of contract not taxable in the absence of Permanent Establishment of the non-resident in India under India-UK tax treaty
ITAT was justified in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 63,46,000 paid by the assessee for acquiring technical know-how was allowable as revenue expenditure? The Tribunal was justified in its opinion that the payment made in question was allowable as revenue expenditure and not as capital expenditure allowable for deprecation under Section 32 of the Act .
