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 High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked sufficient material or evidence to reopen the assessment u/s 147 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 in respect of transactions involving shares of Cubical. The notice u/s 148A(b) and order u/s 148A(d) failed to demonstrate that the AO possessed books of account, documents, or evidence revealing that the assessee's income from Cubical transactions, treated as capital gains, had escaped assessment. The mere allegation of bogus profits from Cubical shares and the tabular statement reflecting figures did not substantiate that the income was undisclosed or a camouflage. Without concrete evidence suggesting the Cubical transactions were bogus, the amount of Rs. 30,71,263/- could not be included as income escaping assessment. Excluding this amount, the remaining income from Gemstone share transactions fell short of the Rs. 50,00,000/- threshold for reopening assessments beyond three years. Consequently, the court decided in favor of the assessee.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked sufficient material or evidence to reopen the assessment u/s 147 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 in respect of transactions involving shares of Cubical. The notice u/s 148A(b) and order u/s 148A(d) failed to demonstrate that the AO possessed books of account, documents, or evidence revealing that the assessee's income from Cubical transactions, treated as capital gains, had escaped assessment. The mere allegation of bogus profits from Cubical shares and the tabular statement reflecting figures did not substantiate that the income was undisclosed or a camouflage. Without concrete evidence suggesting the Cubical transactions were bogus, the amount of Rs. 30,71,263/- could not be included as income escaping assessment. Excluding this amount, the remaining income from Gemstone share transactions fell short of the Rs. 50,00,000/- threshold for reopening assessments beyond three years. Consequently, the court decided in favor of the assessee.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
