This is a case where the loan is given to a person who isn't a registered shareholder. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Travel Services v. CIT [2018] 300 CTR 582 (SC) where the issue was whether to attract section 2(22)(e) of the Act, a 'shareholder' has only to be a person… (read more)

WhatsApp chats are not admissible as evidence unless they comply with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Supreme Court in the case of Anwar P. V. Vs. P. V. Basheer, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 has held and observed that an electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be… (read more)

The action of the Department is right. The Assessee should make an application for condonation of delay before the CBDT under section 119 (2)(b) of the Act. On no response (after follow-ups) or rejection by the Board, the assessee should file a Writ petition before the jurisdictional High Court as there is no alternative efficacious… (read more)

The provisions regarding filing of paper book are contained in Rule 18 of the ITAT Rules . The copy of the paper book to be served on the Departmental Representative at least a week before the date of hearing . It can be sent to Speed or Registered post . In F.N.Roy v. Collector of… (read more)

My answer is as follows: The Application of the Judicial mind cannot be considered as 'malicious or fraudulent'. Please be advised that accusing a sitting judge of such behaviour can constitute contempt of court. You have stated that you have already made a complaint with regard to the said incident. Please note that the law… (read more)

The same would be treated as capital expenditure. The Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Official Liquidator, Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Printing Co. Ltd. [2000] 244 ITR 156( Guj))( HC ) wherein it has been held that expenditure incurred in connection with an amalgamation scheme is to be treated as capital expenditure.… (read more)

According to section 148A(d) of the Act, the order under the said section should be passed within one month from the end of the month in which the response of the assessee is received against the Notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act. In the event there is no order stating that it's a… (read more)

The same would be capital expenditure and has to be added to the cost of land. (read more)

I have never come across such a case law. The striking-off irrelevant portion is only applicable for jurisdictional notices such as the imposition of penalty. The act of the Ld. AO seems to be in accordance with the law. (read more)

Return filed in compliance with Notice issued under section 148 of the Act cannot be revised (read more)