Home ›

Search Results For: S. M. Surana

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 5, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 10, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus Share Capital: The judgement in PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel 103 TM.com 48 (SC) is distinguishable on facts & does not apply to a case where the assessee has discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants by producing the PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments and the investors have shown the source of source & personally appeared before the AO in response to s. 131 summons

The ld DR placed reliance on the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd reported in 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) wherein the decision on addition made towards cash credit was rendered in favour of the revenue. We have gone through the said judgement and we find in that case, the ld AO had made extensive enquiries and from that he had found that some of the investor companies were non-existent which is not the case before us. Certain investor companies did not produce their bank statements proving the source for making investments in assessee company, which is not the case before us. Source of funds were never established by the investor companies in the case before the Hon’ble Apex Court, whereas in the instant case, the entire details of source of source were duly furnished by all the respective share subscribing companies before the ld AO in response to summons u/s 131 of the Act by complying with the personal appearance of directors

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 4, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 7, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C is a deeming provision and applies only to the transfer of land or building. It does not apply to the transfer of "booking rights" and to right to purchase flats in a building

It is essential that for application of Sec. 50C that the transfer must be of a capital asset, being land or building or both. If the capital asset under transfer cannot be described as “land or building or both” then section 50C will cease to apply. Booking advance cannot be equated with the capital asset and therefore section 50C cannot be invoked

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 5, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 11, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
CIT(A) cannot decline to condone delay in filing appeal and still decide it on merits

We are of the view that in case CIT(A) chose not to condone the delay, he has no business to adjudicate the appeal on merits. For this, we are of the view that first of all, the appeal should be …

Dr. Murari Mohan Kokey vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata) Read More »

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 27, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 28, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C: AO cannot straightaway adopt stamp duty value as consideration for capital gains but must offer assessee benefit of reference to DVO for valuation

It is difficult to accept the proposition that the assessee had accepted that the price fixed by the District Sub Registrar was the fair market value of the property. No such inference can be made as against the assessee because …

ITO vs. Onkarmal Kajaria Family Trust (ITAT Kolkata) Read More »