Concessional corporate tax option under section 115BAA survives procedural documentary lapses when statutory compliance and earlier exercise are estab...
Penny-stock additions require transaction-specific evidence; general investigation material alone cannot establish undisclosed income or accommodation...
Transfer pricing comparability prioritises reliable external CUPs and foreign-currency LIBOR benchmarks for exports, borrowings and delayed receivable...
Section 153C satisfaction and seized electronic records sustained unexplained-investment addition, subject to proportionate ownership-share verificati...
The case pertains to the taxability of a reserve arising from an amalgamation u/s 28(iv) and Section 56(2)(x)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The key points are: The appointed date for amalgamation was 01.04.2017, making Section 56(2)(viia) inapplicable. The assessee received assets worth Rs. 149.29 crore without consideration due to the amalgamation. The Assessing Officer sought to tax this amount u/s 28(iv) as a benefit/perquisite arising from business. However, the prerequisites for Section 28(iv) were not met as there was no benefit/perquisite, it did not arise from the assessee's business, and the receipt was capital in nature. The amalgamation reserve was created for accounting purposes and did not result from business activities. The CIT(A) correctly held that the capital reserve cannot be treated as income u/s 28(iv). The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, deciding against the revenue authorities.
The case pertains to the taxability of a reserve arising from an amalgamation u/s 28(iv) and Section 56(2)(x)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The key points are: The appointed date for amalgamation was 01.04.2017, making Section 56(2)(viia) inapplicable. The assessee received assets worth Rs. 149.29 crore without consideration due to the amalgamation. The Assessing Officer sought to tax this amount u/s 28(iv) as a benefit/perquisite arising from business. However, the prerequisites for Section 28(iv) were not met as there was no benefit/perquisite, it did not arise from the assessee's business, and the receipt was capital in nature. The amalgamation reserve was created for accounting purposes and did not result from business activities. The CIT(A) correctly held that the capital reserve cannot be treated as income u/s 28(iv). The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, deciding against the revenue authorities.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
