Highlighting the issue of arrest, Mr Bose said that government doesn’t intend to use such provisions indiscriminately. The effort is to ensure that those getting away by must pay their share of taxes and these provisions must be seen in that context.
The original demand of Rs. 225.86 crores comprised of two components as per the petitioner. The two components were Rs. 114 crores towards the alleged principal tax liability and Rs. 110 crores towards the purported interest liability. We shall first consider the Rs. 110 crores interest liability. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the said figure of Rs. 110 crores can be broken up into three components.
Assessee had produced relevant evidence before the CIT (Appeals) establishing that all the persons, who had deposited the share application, were not fictitious persons. Most of them were identifiable; they made the payment by cheques and most of them were assessed to Income-tax. The Tribunal has given further relief to the assessee and has not accepted the argument of the department that the explanation furnished by the assessee for the addition under Section 69 on account of unexplained investment was not to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer.
Arrangement by which the respondent-assessee sent tickets to the stockists who in turn sold the same to their agents did not indicate that the sale took place at the point of dispatch of tickets to the stockists. We also notice that the unsold tickets are to be returned to the organizing agent of the respondent-assessee at least one day before the actual date of the draw and any tickets received thereafter would not be accepted and treated as sold by the stockists. This makes it clear that those tickets which are returned by the stockists cannot be treated as having been sold. The corollary to this is that mere dispatch of tickets to the stockists would not entail a sale. It is only those dispatches of tickets which are not returnable in the manner indicated above which would be recorded as sales. Thus, till the date of the draw or just prior to the date of the draw it cannot be ascertained as to whether the dispatched tickets were actually sold or not. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and consequently, decide this question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Apex Court has observed in Ajantha Industries (supra) is that while transferring the case on the ground of co-ordinated investigation, some reason has to be given by the commissioner which reveals why it is necessary to transfer the case for the purpose of co-ordinated investigation. In our view unfortunately Commissioner of Income Tax apart from stating that case has been transferred for co-ordinating investigation has not given any other reason. Impugned order is therefore quashed and set aside.
CBI ARRESTS A SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE FOR ACCEPTING A BRIBE OF RS.3.50 LAKH; APPROX. RS.9 LAKH CASH RECOVERED IN SEARCHES FROM HIS POSSESSION The Central Bureau of Investigation has arrested a Superintendent of Central Excise(Anti Evasion), Haldia Commissionerate, Kolkata for demanding & accepting a bribe of Rs.3.5 lakh from the Complainant.
Custom House, Chennai will function on March 29 (Good Friday), 30 (Saturday) and also on Sunday, March 31, to enable Importers and Exporters to file documents, pay duty and clear the goods. On all these days, the Custom House will be functioning from 9.30 A.M. – 6 P.M. like any other working day. A Public notice 72/2013 dated 21.03.2013 has also been issued in this regard.
The other ground on which the CLB interfered with the decision at the board meeting held on 31-10-2012 was that the notices of the board meeting were issued at a time when the Respondent was not in the country and was stuck in New Jersey, USA, which was admittedly hit by a hurricane. While the notice was properly delivered to the Respondent, its request for adjournment of the meeting could have been easily accommodated by the Appellants. Nevertheless, they went ahead and held the meeting. This has been sought to be remedied by the impugned order of the CLB by directing that a fresh board meeting be convened. In the facts and circumstances, the CLB was justified in issuing the said direction. What however cannot be sustained in law is the direction that in the fresh board meeting, effect must be given to clause 6.2 of the JVA. That portion of the impugned order is, therefore, set aside.
I filed Income Tax return of my client in July 2012 for assessment year 2012-13 which was very well before the due date of 31 July 2012. I filed another return of my client in March 2013, which was approximately 9 months late. But see the irony! The Return filed in month of March got processed and return Filed in the Month of July is still not processed.
No person shall manufacture, distribute, sell, purchase, possess, store, or consume any controlled substance included in Schedule-A without a unique registration number in Form-A issued by the Zonal Director of Narcotics Control Bureau:
