PCIT cannot form another view on the same issue in which the Assessing Officer has already satisfied himself and passed an order which clearly indicates that the Assessing Officer has verified and investigated the matter in detail.
Prosecution launched by the Deputy Director for alleged non disclosure of cash by assessee and his wife was not maintainable and premature one. Merely because the power vested to lodge a complaint by the Deputy Director every case the prosecution could not be launched merely on the conferment of such power without any material. If AO came to the conclusion in a proceedings under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, it was open to the Department to initiate penal action as per law.
DCIT Vs Ganesh Plantation Ltd. (ITAT Ahmadabad) AO on one hand has recorded his finding with respect to the shares of certain companies that its face value stands at ₹10 but the assessee has purchased the same at a higher value. The basis of arriving at the conclusion that the assessee has purchased the shares […]
As per Information available on GST website GSTR-9 of FY 2019-20 is available now on GST Portal for filing but Computation of the table 8A of GSTR-9 for auto population from returns is under progress which is likely to be completed soon. For details Visit-GSTR-9 of FY 2019-20 is available now but without table 8A […]
As per information on GSTN website GSTR-9 of FY 2019-20 is available now for filing. Facility to file annual return in Form GSTR-9 for FY 2019-20 is now available. The Form is enabled for taxpayers whose table 8A computation has been completed. Computation of the table 8A of the said return for auto population from […]
Since the petition against Enforcement Directorate towards claiming of interest under section 42(3) of FERA towards seized travellers cheques was filed more than 9 years after receiving the rupee equivalent of UK Pounds 1800 without providing of any reasonable explanation for the delay, therefore, the same was liable to be rejected solely on the ground of laches.
Application and affidavits filed in support thereof discloses sufficient cause for non-appearance. The Tribunal, has inappropriately rejected the Miscellaneous Application, without examining the merits of the said submissions. Paras 5 and 6 of the Impugned Order, as reproduced above, reveal that the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application merely on the ground that the Petitioner had sought frequent adjournments
Tikeshwar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court) Vehicle seized for commission of offence under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; interim custody can be granted under Section 451/457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT 1. This petition under Section […]
