/** * The main template file * * This is the most generic template file in a WordPress theme * and one of the two required files for a theme (the other being style.css). * It is used to display a page when nothing more specific matches a query. * E.g., it puts together the home page when no home.php file exists. * * @link https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/basics/template-hierarchy/ * * @package WordPress * @subpackage Tally * @since 1.0.0 */ ?>
In Income Tax Officer v. Shri Rajeev Ratanlal Tulshyan [I.T.A. No.5748/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2014-15 dated October 01, 2021] [along with cross objection filed by Shri Rajeev Ratanlal Tulshyan (“the Respondent”)], the Income Tax Officer ("the Appellant") filed an appeal for the Assessment Year (“AY”) 2014-2015 arising out of an Order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai [“CIT (A)”] dated July 16, 2017 in the matter of the assessment framed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“AO”) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the IT Act") on December 30, 2016.
In the case, the Appellant raised the following grounds:
In the cross-objection filed by the Respondent, the following grounds were raised:
After taking all the facts and evidences in perusal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”), Mumbai Bench pronounced its judgment in line with the intent of legislatures, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) issued an Circular No. 10/2018 on December 31, 2018 clarifying that keeping in view the legislative intent to apply anti-abuse measures, Section 56 (2) of the IT Act shall not be applicable in case of receipt of shares as a result of fresh issuance of shares, including by way of issue of bonus shares, rights shares and preference shares. Inferring from these observations, the Tribunal held that the anti-abuse provisions under section 56(2) of the IT Act shall not be applicable to genuine issue of shares to the existing shareholders.
(Author can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in P.R Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s United Spirits Ltd. [I.T.A. No. 548/2015 c/w I.T.A No. 37/2010 decided on September 2, 2021] answered in favor
In Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sonu Realtors Private Limited [INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.956 OF 2017 dated October 11, 2021], Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (“the Appellant”) filed the appeal being
In Shri Shanthilal Movji Bhai Thakker v. The Income Tax Officer [ITA No. 2267-2270/Chny/2019 decided on November 3, 2021] Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (“ITAT”) held that rental income from
The Hon’ble Orissa High Court (“Orissa HC”) in the matter of Smt. Smrutisudha Nayak v. Union of India and Others [W.P. (C) Nos. 10587 OF 2009 dated October 27, 2021], held that assessment proceedings
In M/s. Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore [ITA 3064 /BANG/2018, decided on November 10, 2021], Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (“ITAT”)