Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The appeal filed by the assessee company was dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the grounds that the Form 36 (memo of appeal) was not duly verified as per Rule 47(1) read with Rule 45(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The rules mandate that Form 36 must be verified by the person authorized to verify the return of income u/s 140 of the Income Tax Act, which in case of a company is the Managing Director or any Director. However, in this case, Form 36 was verified by the Authorized Representative (Chartered Accountant) of the assessee company instead of the Managing Director or a Director. Consequently, the appeal was held to be invalid and dismissed in limine. The Tribunal also noted issues with the ex-parte assessment order passed without proper service of notice to the assessee and in the name of a different entity, as well as the addition of bogus accommodation entries.
The appeal filed by the assessee company was dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the grounds that the Form 36 (memo of appeal) was not duly verified as per Rule 47(1) read with Rule 45(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The rules mandate that Form 36 must be verified by the person authorized to verify the return of income u/s 140 of the Income Tax Act, which in case of a company is the Managing Director or any Director. However, in this case, Form 36 was verified by the Authorized Representative (Chartered Accountant) of the assessee company instead of the Managing Director or a Director. Consequently, the appeal was held to be invalid and dismissed in limine. The Tribunal also noted issues with the ex-parte assessment order passed without proper service of notice to the assessee and in the name of a different entity, as well as the addition of bogus accommodation entries.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
