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...
The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of short-term loss claimed by the assessee in the Profit and Loss Account, holding that the shares were acquired under a normal business transaction and can be treated as stock-in-trade. The High Court held that u/s 260-A of the Act, it could entertain an appeal only if it involves a substantial question of law. In the present case, the question raised by the Revenue is not a substantial question of law but a question of fact. The Revenue did not file an appeal before the Tribunal regarding the colorable device or genuineness of the transaction or the allowance of loss. The substantial question of law raised by the Revenue emanates from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), not the Tribunal's order. The Revenue did not raise the issue of the genuineness of the transaction or colorable device before the Tribunal. Therefore, the High Court is not inclined to interfere with the Tribunal's order and answered the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue against them and in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of short-term loss claimed by the assessee in the Profit and Loss Account, holding that the shares were acquired under a normal business transaction and can be treated as stock-in-trade. The High Court held that u/s 260-A of the Act, it could entertain an appeal only if it involves a substantial question of law. In the present case, the question raised by the Revenue is not a substantial question of law but a question of fact. The Revenue did not file an appeal before the Tribunal regarding the colorable device or genuineness of the transaction or the allowance of loss. The substantial question of law raised by the Revenue emanates from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), not the Tribunal's order. The Revenue did not raise the issue of the genuineness of the transaction or colorable device before the Tribunal. Therefore, the High Court is not inclined to interfere with the Tribunal's order and answered the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue against them and in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
