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)
Karnataka HC holds HSNS Cess framework unconstitutional due to manner of Cess calculation
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent ruling of the Karnataka High Court (HC) [1] on the constitutional validity of Health Security se Natio...
-
ITC is blocked on motor vehicles having seating capacity ≤ 13 persons (including the driver) used for the transportation of persons. Furth...
-
This Tax Alert summarizes a recent judgement of the Delhi High Court (HC)on imposition of penalty on directors of a company under the Ce...
-
A new website launched for TDS related matters www.tdscpc.gov.in TRACES – T DS R econciliation A nalysis and C orrection E nabling S yste...
-
Clarifications from the GST Council The GST Council has recommended the following clarifications on ISD and cross charge:
-
Recently, in a significant taxpayer-friendly ruling, the Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT, in the case of Nikesh Bhagwandas Mehta vs. ITO , has clarifi...
-
Section 68 -Cash credits Section 69 -Unexplained investments Section 69A - Unexplained money, etc Section 69B -Amount of investme...
-
LEASE-DEED (A brief Introduction) Lease defined. A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, mad...
-
THE issues before the Bench are - Whether when an expenditure is claimed to have been incurred by an assessee for promotion of his busine...
-
Income Tax Department had clarify that the renting of mobile tower would attract lower TDS Deductions u/s. 194-I and not u/s...
-
Sr No Due Date Related to Compliance to be made 1 11.07.2026 GST ...
No comments:
Post a Comment