CIT Vs. Db (India) Securities Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The assessee, a broker, purchased shares of the value of Rs.1,06,10,247 on behalf of its sub-broker. The sub-broker made payment of Rs.64 lakhs. As the remaining amount of Rs.41,37,881 was not paid, the assessee did not deliver those shares to the client though it offered the brokerage to tax.
The argument of the Ministry of Law & Justice that the ITAT could not go into interpretation of Rule 13E is not acceptable because in accordance with the duty of the Tribunal to give a proper hearing to the parties, the Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction to consider whether the parties who are appearing before it are properly entitled under the law to make appearance
The dispute raised in this appeal is whether F & O transaction can be considered as speculative transaction or not. The speculative transactions have been defined in section 43(5) as transactions in which contract for purchase or sale of any commodity including stock of shares is periodically and ultimately settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of commodity or scrips.
During the course of survey on 05.11.2004, the assessee had agreed to the addition of Rs. 14.06 lakhs on a/c of difference in stock and Rs.0.49 lakhs as difference in cash in hand (total Rs. 15.34000) This addition has accordingly been made in the net profit subject to non-initiation of penalty and prosecution proceedings as stipulated in me statement recorded during survey.
The appellant/assessee, which is a HUF, sold its agricultural land for Rs.14,28,400/ – in September, 1995 giving rise to a long term capital gain of Rs.9,67,412/ -. The assessee claimed that the capital gain be not charged as it was entitled to the benefit of Section 54-F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The crux of the matter is: what is the meaning to be ascribed to the expression used for the purposes of the business as found in Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provision of Section 32 pertains to depreciation. The contention of the Revenue is that with respect to any machinery for which depreciation is claimed under Section 32,
It cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that once a petition is admitted, it could never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy; therefore, the High Court can entertain the plea whether the writ is maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, even after the writ petition was admitted and rule nisi was ordered
The land which falls within the exception of `urban land’ would have to be excluded from the ambit and scope of expression `urban land’ and, such land would not be covered by the expression `assets’ as defined in section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957; consequently, such land would not be treated as net wealth of an assessee for the purposes of provisions of the Act.
PICK-UP and drop transport facility provided by employers is not a perquisite and hence not liable to tax, according to a recent ruling by a tax tribunal. In a decision that has implications for the sectors such as BPO and IT, the Mumbai Income-Tax Apellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that companies providing such a facility were not liable to deduct tax on the expenditure incurred on it.
Question Nos. 10 and 11 pertain to assessee’s challenge against levy of interest under section 234B of the Act for non-payment of advance tax. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT V. RANCHI CLUB LTD., 247LT.R, 209 and decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. INCHCAPE INDIA (P) LTD.,
