See the footer if you would like to unsubscribe from the newsletter
Dear Subscriber,
Dear Subscriber,
Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)
S. 147 Reopening for Bogus Share Capital u/s 68: The parent co does not have sufficient funds to invest such huge amounts in Indian subsidiaries. The funds are routed through a web of entities spread across various jurisdictions, mostly in tax havens. The investments so made, are required to be investigated and the credit worthiness of the investing company is in jeopardy, in view of the information received from the investigation wing. This exercise can be undertaken during the re-reassessment proceedings to finally determine if the amounts represent undisclosed income of the assessee which is required to be taxed in its hands. At the stage of re-opening, only a reason to believe should exist with regard to escapement of income. Definite conclusion would be drawn after raising queries upon the assessee in the light of s. 68 of the Act (All imp verdicts referred) Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant of approval must not be made in a mechanical manner, however, as noted by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) v Assistant Commissioner, Circle-38, Kolkata [2016] 67 taxmann.com 339 (Calcutta), the mere fact that the sanctioning authority did not record his satisfaction in so many words would not render invalid the sanction granted under section 151(2) when the reasons on the basis on the basis of which sanction was sought could not be assailed and even an appellate authority is not required to give reasons when it agrees with the finding unless statute or rules so requires
Cavalier Trading Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)
S. 254(2): The Writ Petition to challenge the ITAT's order dismissing the MA does not appear to be bonafide. In the garb of the MA, the Petitioner sought review of the final order passed by the Tribunal and for rehearing of the appeal which is not permissible in law. Costs of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the Petitioner In the instant case, what we notice is that not only was there no mistake apparent from the record but in the garb of the Misc. Application, petitioner had sought for review of the final order passed by the Tribunal and for rehearing of the appeal which is not permissible in law. In our view, Writ Petition does not appear to be bonafide
Carestream Health Inc vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 2(47)/45: A reduction of capital results in an "extinguishment of rights" in the shares and constitutes a "transfer‟. The fact that the percentage of shareholding remains unchanged even after the reduction is irrelevant. The loss arising from the cancellation of shares is entitled to indexation and is allowable as a long-term capital loss (Bennett Coleman 133 ITD 1 (Mum)(SB) distinguished, all imp verdicts referred) The ld DR vehemently argued that the percentage of shareholding remains the same because reduction of shares had happened for all shareholders. We find that the ld DR relied on para 24 of the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in 133 ITD 1 supra to support his proposition. In this regard, we hold that the percentage of shareholding has got no bearing for chargeability of capital gains under the Act. We further find that the provisions of section 55(2)(v) of the Act were applied in the Mumbai Special Bench decision also in para 28 thereon. We find that in the case before us, the provisions of section 55(2)(v) of the Act will have no application at all and if the assessee is not given the benefit, it will never get it and none of the clauses of section 55(2)(v) of the Act would be applicable to the assessee in the instant case. Hence reliance placed on para 28 of the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal does not advance the case of the revenue
Tax Counsel Explains Intricacies Of 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'
Senior Advocate Firoze Andhyarujina delivered a lecture in which he has explained all the nuances and intricacies of the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' in a detailed manner. The learned counsel has pinpointed the pitfalls in the scheme and also offered valuable suggestions on how they can be resolved so as to attain the laudable objective of the Government of eliminating the backlog of disputed casesFinance Bill 2020: Whether You Gain By Switching To New Alternate Tax Regime?
The Finance Bill 2020 proposes to create an Alternate Tax Regime by way of new Section 115BAC to give benefit of lower tax rates to individual and HUF tax payers. Advocate Narayan Jain has analyzed the proposal in detail. He has explained the precise implications with the aid of case studies and advised on the circumstances in which the taxpayers should opt for the new regime See Also: Digest of case laws (updated regularly) containing latest judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
FAQs On The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Bill, 2020 By Experts
CAs Ketan Ved, Urvi Mehta & Shraddha Jain have answered a few core questions that have arisen in the minds of taxpayers and tax professionals with regard to the interpretation of the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. The learned authors have drawn on their experience and offered workable solutions to several questions__._,_.___
Posted by: "editor@itatonline.org" <itatonline.org@gmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
.
__,_._,___
0 comments:
Post a Comment