19. It is true that attaching the properties of an assessee even before the crystlisation of the demand is a drastic step and has to be exercised only in extreme circumstances. Whether extreme circumstances existed in the present case so as to levy provisional attachment under section 281B of the Act is the question. 20. In the present case, the incriminating documents seized during the course of search and seizure
8.3 It cannot be disputed and it is not the case of either side that the reasons extracted hereinabove did not precede the issuance of notice under Section 148(1) of the Act. The requirement for recordal of reasons by the Assessing Officer before issuing a notice is provided for under sub-section (2) of Section 148 of the Act. 8.4 A perusal of the reasons would thus show that the Assessing Officer was
6.1 The main question before us for decision is whether the interest income could be treated as “business income” or “income from other sources”. The answer to this question has to depend on how the interest income derived by the assessee. No doubt, normally, on the placing of funds in banks on short-term or long-term deposits the interest income derived from those sources would be “income from other sources”
6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. In the instant case it is observed that interest expenditure claimed by the assessee at an amount of Rs. 27.90 lacs was disallowed by the Assessing Officer which was restricted by the Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs. 27.75 lacs being net amount of interest paid by the assessee
14.2 After considering the rival submissions in the light of the material placed before us and the precedents relied upon it is obvious that sub-sections (1) and (1A) of section 201 do not prescribe any time limit for the initiation of the proceedings or the passing of the order. We find that for the most of the actions under the Act, the particular time limit has been given for the commencement and completion of the proceedings
A former partner at the accounting firm Ernst & Young was found guilty on Friday of securities fraud for an insider trading scheme but not guilty of conspiracy charges. A jury in United States District Court in Manhattan found that the ex-partner, James E. Gansman, who worked at the firm until October 2007, was guilty […]
