TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal dismissed against assessee on substantial law questions, stay denied. First proviso to Section 68 interpretation left open.</h1> <h3>LABDHAN MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. & ANR. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (4), KOLKATA & ORS.</h3> LABDHAN MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. & ANR. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (4), KOLKATA & ORS. - TMI Issues:Delay in filing the appeal, interpretation of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, reassessment order, addition on account of share capital/premium, jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263.Delay in filing the appeal:The appellant sought condonation of a 116-day delay in filing the appeal, which was allowed by the court after finding the reasons acceptable and sufficient cause shown by the appellant.Interpretation of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The appeal was directed against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the applicability of the first proviso to Section 68 for the assessment year 2009-10. The appellant raised questions regarding the Tribunal's decision on the insertion of the proviso and lack of proper inquiries on share capital/premium.Reassessment order:The Tribunal's decision on the reassessment order was challenged by the appellant, questioning the correctness of considering the lack of proper inquiries during proceedings under Section 147 as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.Addition on account of share capital/premium:The Tribunal's decision to allow addition under Section 68 in the first year of incorporation/business was contested by the appellant, citing judgments of the Supreme Court that no addition can be made under Section 68 in certain circumstances.Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263:The Tribunal's ruling on the Commissioner's authority under Section 263 to set aside the assessment order for a thorough inquiry was disputed by the appellant, arguing against the Tribunal's findings on the issue of share capital/share premium.Judgment:The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, answering substantial questions of law against the assessee based on a previous decision. The application for stay was also dismissed. The substantial question regarding the interpretation of the first proviso to Section 68 was left open for further consideration.
TaxTMI 