Search Results For: Waseem Ahmed (AM)


Minda SM Technocast Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 7, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 21, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(viia)/ Rule 11UA: The "fair market value" of shares acquired has to be determined by the taking the book values of the underlying assets and not their market values

On the plain reading of Rule 11UA, it is revealed that while valuing the shares the book value of the assets and liabilities declared by the TEPL should be taken into consideration. There is no whisper under the provision of 11UA of the Rules to refer the fair market value of the land as taken by the Assessing Officer as applicable to the year under consideration

ITO vs. NVS Builders Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 8, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 21, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 143(2) Notice: The issue of a s. 143(2) notice by an AO not having jurisdiction over the assessee is irrelevant. If the proper AO does not issue the notice within the time limit, the assessment is null and void. The argument that the non-jurisdictional AO issued the s. 143(2) notice as per PAN or computerized system or internal procedure is not relevant as it violates the law

The contention of the Ld. D.R. has no merit that ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad was empowered to issue notice as per PAN or it was issued as per Computerized System of the Department because it is against the provisions of Law. As such the issue would be in violation of the principles of law and as such the internal procedure provided by the department would not justify the illegality committed by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad

Kalyani Barter (P) Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 3, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 10, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
A disallowance u/s 14A & Rule 8D has to be made even in respect of securities that are held as stock-in-trade by the assessee. However, the disallowance has to be computed by taking into consideration only those shares which have yielded dividend income in the year under consideration

The object of s. 14A is to disallow the direct and indirect expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. There is no dispute that part of the income of the assessee from its business is from dividend which is exempt from tax whereas the assessee was unable to produce any material before the authorities below showing the source from which shares were acquired. The mere fact that those shares were old ones and not acquired recently is immaterial. It is for the assessee to show the source of acquisition of those shares by production of materials that those were acquired from the funds available in the hands of the assessee at the relevant point of time without taking benefit of any loan. If those shares were purchased from the amount taken in loan, even for instance, five or ten years ago, it is for the assessee to show by the production of documentary evidence that such loaned amount had already been paid back and for the relevant assessment year, no interest is payable by the assessee for acquiring those old shares

Surya Prakash Toshniwal HUF vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 14, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus capital gains from penny stocks: Long-term capital gains claimed exempt u/s 10(38) cannot be treated as bogus unexplained income if the paper work is in order. The fact that the Company whose shares were sold has violated SEBI norms and is not traceable does not mean that the assessee is at fault

The lower authorities have not brought on record any concrete evidence for disallowing the long term capital gain of the assessee. The AO should have issued notices and summons to M/s RFL and ACPL under section 133(6) and 131 of the Act for the production of the necessary financial information before rejecting the claim of the assessee. We find that all the necessary information which were available with the assessee had been brought on record by the assessee before the lower authorities. In case ACPL has not filed the financial statements with the stock exchange then the assessee for the fault of ACPL cannot be held guilty under the income tax proceedings. The assessee in the instant case has made the transactions for the sale and purchase of the shares through a valid stock broker who was in existence at the relevant time with the stock exchange and this fact has not been doubted by the lower authorities. In view of the above we hold that the lower authorities had not brought on record sufficient reasons for disallowing the claim of the assessee

Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya vs. ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 6, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 3, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): A penalty notice u/s 274 which does not strike out the irrelevant portion & which does not specify whether the penalty is for “concealment” or for “furnishing inaccurate particulars” renders the penalty order void

The next argument that the show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act which is in a printed form does not strike out as to whether the penalty is sought to be levied on the for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” or “concealing particulars of such income”. On this aspect we find that in the show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act the AO has not struck out the irrelevant part. It is therefore not spelt out as to whether the penalty proceedings are sought to be levied for “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” or “concealing particulars of such income”

Top