Join our free webinar on July 4th at 4:00 PM to gain insights into the dematerialization of securities and recent amendments. Register now for key updates.
Join our free webinar on July 7 at 5 PM for insights into 10 recent High Court income tax judgments favoring assessees. Expert analysis by CA Dipak Dama.
We are of the opinion that there is nothing to suggest that all the primary facts were not disclosed by the assessee at the time of original assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act nor any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts has been ascribed in the circumstances narrated before us. It cannot be said that the assessee suppressed any material facts. It is well-settled that if a notice under sect ion 148 of the Act has been issued without the jurisdictional foundation u/s 147 of the Act being available to the AO, the notice and the subsequent proceedings will be without jurisdiction and thus, liable to be struck down
Hon’ble Delhi High Court that in the case of C.I.T. vs. Pawan Kumar Gupta (2009) 318 ITR 322 (Del.) in the context of issue of notice u/s 143(2) in block assessment, which are in pari materia to proceedings u/s. 148, wherein it has held that section 143(2) is a mandatory provision whether one looks at it from the standpoint of a regular assessment or from the standpoint of an assessment under Chapter XIVB. Section 143(2) has no application in a situation where the Assessing Officer, on receipt of the return of undisclosed income in the Form No. 2B from the assessee, is satisfied with the same as reflecting the true state of affairs then it is not necessary for him to embark upon any further enquiry or investigation but where the Assessing Officer is not inclined to accept the return of undisclosed income filed by the assessee, the procedure in section 143(2) has to be followed.
For the assessment year 2006- 07, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 23rd March, 2009 had imposed penalty of Rs. 10,70,000/- under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short). This penalty was levied on account of Rs. 21,97,500/- received in cash by the respondent- assessee from Pradeep Aggarwal and Kaveri Aggarwal. The Assessing Officer, in this connection, has referred to the assessment order in the quantum proceedings wherein the nature and character of the aforesaid deposit/ transaction has been discussed in detail and the terms loan and deposit were examined. The Assessing Officer has recorded that the authorized share capital of the respondent assessee company was Rs. 1,00,000/- only.
Supreme Court in Vodafone International (dated 20 January 2012) considered its decisions in the matters of McDowell reported in (1985) 3 SCC 230, Azadi Bachao reported in (2004) 10 SCC 1 and the Mathuram Agarwal reported in (1999) 8 SCC 667 and concluded that where the transaction is not genuine but a colourable device there could be no question of tax planning. Supreme Court makes it very clear that a colourable device cannot be a part of tax planning.
Applicability of Act (Sec 1) – Every factory wherein 10 or more persons are employed with the aid of power or An establishment In which 20 or more persons are employed without the aid of power on any day during an accounting year. Establishment : Establishment includes departments, undertakings and branches, etc.
Ahead of the Annual Union Budget later this Week, Select Committee of the Parliament, which has scrutinized the Direct Tax Code Bill (DTC), likely to replace Income Tax Law of 1961 has recommended some very significant tax reforms and tax payer’s friendly measures.
Notification No. 5(4)-B(PD)/2011 It is hereby notified that the deposits made under the Special Deposit Scheme for Non-Government Provident, Superannuation and Gratuity Funds, announced in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs) Notification No. F. 16(1)-PD/75, dated 30th June, 1975, shall with effect from 1st December, 2011 and until further orders, bear interest at 8.6% (eight point six per cent) per annum
The Central Bureau of Investigation has filed a chargesheet against the then Commissioner, Central Excise-Delhi-I; Superintendent, Central Excise, Delhi; a middleman(Private person) and two other private persons in the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases in a bribery case. The Court has taken the cognizance of the said offences.
It is seen from the records that the first appellate authority has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant on the question of limitation. It is undisputed that the appellant had received the order in original on 28.8.2010 and the appellant had a right to file an appeal within three months from the date of receipt of the order and he also gets further period of three months for seeking condonation of delay from the first appellate authority.
The Government has initiated action on various fronts to tackle the menace of black money. These include enactment of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, amendment of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, setting up of a special committee to examine measures to strengthen laws to curb black money generation in the country, and commissioning of studies by independent agencies to assess the quantum of black money both inside and outside the country. The framing of the General Anti-Avoidance Rules and Controlled Foreign Company Rules has been taken up under the proposed Direct Taxes Code. Efforts are underway to build political consensus on the Goods and Services Tax, which will give a major boost to the economy by rationalising indirect taxes and giving full input credit.
