Delhi ITAT deletes
protective addition of Rs.371.34cr in respect of income of overseas companies
made in the hands of shareholder assessee (individual) while conducting search
and seizure operation u/s 132(1) for AYs 2006-07 to 2012-13; Notes that Revenue
had made addition in the hands of 3 persons – 1) overseas companies (on
substantive basis) 2) assessee’s husband (on protective basis on the grounds
that he exercised control and management of the affairs of the overseas
companies) 3) assessee (on protective basis on the ground that even though
profits of all the overseas companies were taxable in India being ‘Resident’
u/s 6(3), they did not admit to be in jurisdiction of India and hence no valid
return was filed by them); ITAT opines that “when addition was already made in
the hands of the overseas companies on substantive basis treating them as
residents in India, there is no justification for the Assessing Officer to make
such an addition in the hands of a share holder on protective basis, when no
benefit was derived by her from these companies to protect the interest of
revenue”; Further, noting that based on the assessment of assessee’s husband,
Revenue made addition of similar amount in case of assessee, ITAT opines that
“the Assessing Officer did not assess the income of the assessee based on the
details filed in her return u/s 153A, but assessed the income of the overseas
companies in her hands without any basis”; Observing that CIT(A) had deleted
entire protective addition in assessee’s husband’s case, ITAT states that the
same would apply mutatis mutandis to assessee’s case and thus deletes the
addition as ‘unwarranted and unjustified’:ITAT
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
CBDT issues second round of frequently asked questions in relation to Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024
This Tax Alert summarizes Circular No. 19/2024 dated 16 December 2024 (VSV 2- December Circular) issued by the Central Board of Direct Tax...
-
PCIT vs. The Executor of Estate of Late Smt. Manjula A. Shah (Bombay High Court) S. 50C Capital Gains: The valuation of the stamp autho...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) [1] on availability of CENVAT Credit on mobile towers and pre-fabrica...
-
IFRS and US GAAP - Similarities and Differences What is IFRS? And what is GAAP? The main difference between IFRS and US GAAP is that G...
-
Madras HC reverses ITAT's order, grants deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) to assessee (a society engaged in the business of banking and provi...
-
SC dismisses assessee-company’s SLP challenging Bombay HC order upholding re-assessment initiation (beyond 4 yrs period) based on a special...
-
SC dismisses Revenue’s SLP challenging Bombay HC order in case of assessee (belonging to Lodha group of companies engaged in real estate bu...
-
Claiming a foreign tax credit (FTC) in Australia allows companies to offset foreign taxes paid on income earned overseas against their Aust...
-
HC allows HDFC Bank’s writ petition, quashes AO’s order and subsequent reference to TPO alleging that certain related party transactions [p...
-
Delhi ITAT deletes Rs. 1558.57 cr. capital gains addition on Telenor India for AY 2014-15, holds that set off of non-refundable entry fee p...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Bombay High Court (HC)1 on admissibility of input tax credit (ITC) w.r.t GST on advance p...
No comments:
Post a Comment