In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (4) of rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, the Central Board of Excise & Customs hereby extends the date of submission of the Form ST-3 for the period from 1st April 2014 to 30th September 2014, from 25th October, 2014 to 14th November, 2014.
The only issue here is the addition of Rs.60 lacs made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained credit on account of the share application money. On going through the facts of the case, we notice that assessee has filed the relevant details which it could have filed in support of its contention
The assessee had contended that the Assessing officer was not entitled to make adjustments to book profit shown in the audited The question that had arisen was whether the Assessing officer was entitled to disturb the net profit shown by the assessee in the profit and loss account prepared as per the Companies Act, 1956.
The company was incorporated on 24-11-2004 under the Indian Companies Act with the authorized capital of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- being minimum capital for the company obtaining membership of stock broker.
We could notice from the record that the assessee was having share holding funds to the extent of 2607.18 crores and the investment made by it was to the extent of Rs. 195.10 crores. In other words, the assessee had sufficient funds for making the investments and it has not used the borrowed
First of all, we have to examine the documents produced by the assessee during the course of original assessment framed u/s. 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 20.11.2009. We find from the assessment order that the assessee produced complete details of purchases i.e. purchase statement.
As per provisions of section 132B of the Act the assets seized u/s 132 or requisitioned u/s 132A may be adjusted towards the amount of any “existing liability”. The Explanation 2 attach to section 132B of the Act clarifies that for removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the “existing liability”
condition precedent for proceeding under section 147/148 of the Act was that the Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court further held, The notice under section 147/148 issued to the petitioner was not vitiated merely for the reason that notice under section 143(2) had not been issued to it.
There is no dispute about the fact that the order of penalty at annexure A dated 12.3.2010 was made against the petitioner on the basis of the assessment of income of the petitioner done by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Act.
) take necessary steps to put in place systems for implementation of this circular, including necessary amendments to the relevant bye-laws, rules and regulations;
