The assessee is a dealer of sarees and AO while framing the assessment disallowed karigar /embroidery charges by invoking the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the act for non-deduction of TDS u/s 194C of the Act.
The Assessing Officer while computing the total wealth of the assessee added the value of the let-out properties i.e. godown and offices in the total wealth of the assessee for the purpose of calculating the wealth-tax.
We have understood the concepts and some important definition under the Competition Act, 2002. As we have considered the charging provisions of Sections 3 and 4, we have learned that the main object of the act is to promote competition and restrict any activities by any entity or group of entities to restrict competition in the market.
In the present case it appears that the Commissioner has assumed that in respect of all the clearances, the appellant has collected Excise Duty. If the department makes the allegation that the appellant had collected money representing Excise Duty
The assessee company was engaged in the business of real estate development. Vide order of Hon’ble High Court, 19 Group companies engaged in similar business were merged in the assessee company w.e.f 01.04.1999.
The present case is related to search & seizure action carried out in case of Sh. S.K. Gupta (‘third party’) in respect of companies and other business entities which were controlled by him or owned by him or different individuals connected with him.
However, where the fundamental transaction is shown to be a sham transaction, the same cannot necessarily be accepted as genuine merely because a broker’s confirmation and invoices have been produced. Given the facts of this case, the decisions referred to by CIT(A)
Mistake apparent on the record u/s 154 must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions.
The petitioner by letter dated 17th November, 2011 had disclosed a foreign bank account which existed with the HSBC Private Bank, Geneva, Switzerland to the Director of Income Tax (Investigation-II). The peak amount lying in the said account during the year ending 31st March, 2007 was around US$ 1.3 million.
It is an admitted fact, in the present case that the Department has failed to supply the assessee the copy of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Company, the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
