Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Concerning the addition u/s 28(iv) for the amount credited to Capital Reserves on account of allotment of shares by the amalgamated company with respect to the shares held in the amalgamating company, it was held that such allotment of shares is not a voluntary transaction. The benefit accruing to the assessee due to amalgamation by way of merger is not in the revenue field and not of an income nature. Therefore, there was no occasion to invoke Section 28(iv) of the Act. The amalgamation is not an adventure in the nature of trade, and this transaction is clearly a capital account transaction. Consequently, the capital reserve could not be considered as a benefit accrued to the assessee u/s 28(iv), and the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition was upheld.
Concerning the addition u/s 28(iv) for the amount credited to Capital Reserves on account of allotment of shares by the amalgamated company with respect to the shares held in the amalgamating company, it was held that such allotment of shares is not a voluntary transaction. The benefit accruing to the assessee due to amalgamation by way of merger is not in the revenue field and not of an income nature. Therefore, there was no occasion to invoke Section 28(iv) of the Act. The amalgamation is not an adventure in the nature of trade, and this transaction is clearly a capital account transaction. Consequently, the capital reserve could not be considered as a benefit accrued to the assessee u/s 28(iv), and the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition was upheld.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.