The very same issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Tax Case (Appeal) No.273 of 2012 dated 12.09.2012 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/s. Shriram Properties & Constructions (Chennai) Ltd., T.Nagar, Chennai-17) wherein one of us was a member (Justice K.Ravichandrabaabu, J). In that case, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act holding that the assessee had not filed the revised return of income to offer the amount as income for the purpose of assessment
In short, the Revenue authorities and the Tribunal on the basis of evidence on record came to the conclusion that the addition of Rs.50 lacs was justified. We do not find any question of law arising. The entire issue rests solely on appreciation of evidence on record. Particularly when the assessee having made such a statement and repeated the same two months later and in the letter retracting the statement never offered any explanation as to the reason why he made a confessional statement two months after the search, we do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts of two Revenue authorities and the Tribunal.
Notification No. 19/2013 – Income Tax [F. NO. 225/38/2013-ITA. II], DATED 12-3-2013 In pursuance of sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 138 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Central Government hereby specifies Director, Financial Intelligence Unit India (FIUIND), Ministry of Finance for the purpose of the said sub-clause.
Notification No. 97/2013 – Income Tax [F.NO. V. 27015/4/2012-SO(NAT.COM]]/S.O. 627(E), DATED 12-3-2013 In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1), read with clause (b) of the Explanation to section 35AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Government, on the recommendations of the National Committee for Promotion of Social and Economic Welfare, hereby notifies the institutions approved by the said National Committee, mentioned in column (2) of the Table below, and approves the eligible projects or schemes
Attention of all Authorised Persons (APs), who are Indian Agents under the Money Transfer Service Scheme (MTSS) is invited to the Notification dated June 4, 2003 on MTSS, as amended from time to time and the specific permission accorded to them under FEMA, 1999 by the Reserve Bank to undertake inward cross-border money transfer activities in India, through tie-up arrangements with Overseas Principals.
VAT – Delhi – Notification No. No. F. 5(54) Policy-II VAT 2012-13 1363-1375 Dated Tuesday, March 12, 2013 – AMENDMENTS In the Sixth Schedule of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004-(Delhi Act 03 of 2005), a new entry at Sl.No.30 after Sl.No.29 of Part-B of Sl.No.1 shall be inserted namely:- (30) United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP-SSWA), New Delhi.
As there was lot of expectations from this budget, that budget might be investors or common men friendly. However in reality it does not seems like that. If we talk about real estate and union budget 2013, there was two sided impact on it. I.e. DIRECT TAX and INDIRECT TAX. One by one we take […]
In bid to bring commitment over introduction of GST, the Finance Minister used carrot approach by announcing in its budget for 2013-14, a compensation of Rs. 9,000 crore as first tranche towards loss to the State Government due to reduction in CST rate. This came as result out of the two-day conclave at Bhubaneswar between […]
Status of sending the monthly details of the Provident Fund accounts to employees is as follows: (i) The updated Provident Fund (PF) accounts are available online on the EPFO website i.e. wwe.epfindia.gov.in from August 2012 and the Provident Fund accounts of members are updated as and when the contribution is received. Members can view and […]
We do not find that the assessee is entitled to stay of recovery proceedings during the limitation period for the filing of the appeal. There is no deemed stay of liability after the enforceable order is passed by an authority under the statute. In view of the above, mere fact that the petitioner had time limit to file an appeal does not bar the revenue to execute the order passed.
