It has not been disputed that the four sellers of the agricultural lands were neither examined nor their statements recorded, nor sec. 50C was invoked against them. Under these circumstances, the addition on the basis of a presumption which according to I.T. Act can only be raised against seller, cannot be made in the hands of the purchaser. Besides, we find merit in the argument of learned counsel for the assessee that provisions of sec. 142A cannot be applied against a transaction which is stock in trade. Order of CIT(A) is upheld as being on just and proper observation.
Amended section 10B as well as section 10A, 10AA, 10BA were introduced in the Act with a specific purpose. All these sections can be classified as ‘special provisions’ with regard to allowable deductions in certain areas. Said sections contain an in-built mechanism for computing the profits arising out of the business activities of the units/undertakings. It is a fact that above sections, including section 10B talk about ‘deductions’, but it is also a fact that still they are part of Chapter III i.e., the chapter that deals with income which do not form part of total income.
1. SEBI had notified SEBI (Issue and Listing of Debt Securities) Regulations in 2008 specifying norms for public issue of debt securities and privately placed listed debt securities. 2. With respect to public issue of debt securities, there is currently no specified standard format for the Application Form and Abridged Prospectus. This has resulted in different application forms and abridged prospectus being used in public issues of debt securities.
P resident of Supreme Court Advocates On Record Association (SCAORA) , Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain has written a detailed complaint letter to Chief Justice of India stating that the Honorable Supreme Court should consult the Bar Association before making practice-related decisions. We are attaching below the letter which is worth reading :-
It has become very easy in most of the cases for the Bank now to recover their dues under ‘The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act)”. Under the Act, the Bank classifies the loan account as ‘NPA’ as per the RBI guidelines, gives a demand notice under section 13 (2) of the Act asking the borrower/s to pay the entire outstanding, deal with the objections if any from the borrower/s under section 13 (3A), will take the symbolic possession of the property under section 13 (4), proceeds with taking the physical possession of the property with the police assistance etc. under section 14 if there is resistance in taking physical possession of the property and then, proceeds with auctioning the property in accordance with the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and connected rules.
Imposing Fees on Certain E-Forms Filed with ROC, RD OR MCA(HQ) under MCA-21 Where at Present No Fee is Prescribed The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has decided to impose a certain amount of fee on the following forms at the rates indicated in the table below:- S.No. Form No. Particulars of the Form Fee […]
The main grievance of the appellant is that the Commissioner got a verification report dated 30.12.2009 from the Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion) which indicated the Service Tax liability as Rs. 55,80,580/- and the said report was not made available to them and the Commissioner has accepted the version given by the Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion) without granting them an opportunity to contest the veracity of the report.
We find that show cause notice stands issued on 7-2-2007 for the period 1-7-2003 to 31-8-2004, thus invoking the longer period of limitation. Tribunal in the case of Brij Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [Final Order No. ST/601/2011, dated 22-11-2011] as [2012 (25) STR 489 (Tri – Delhi)] has taken note of the fact that the were decisions of the Tribunal holding in favour of the assessees and as such has held the demand to be barred by limitation.
The issue as to whether there was concealment of particulars of income on the part of the assessee so as to attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) depends on the acceptability of the explanation of the assessee that the mistake in this regard was inadvertent due to his ignorance of Indian Income-tax law, hence there was bona fide reason for the same.
It is not a case where the Assessing Officer has brought any material on record to indicate that the revenue was aware of the non-genuineness of the gift received by the assessee. Except vague observations that there was a fake gift racket nothing specific has been pointed out in the case of the assessee. In fact action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that assessee has concealed income is contradictory in terms for the simple reason that the Investigation Wing appears to have passed on the information, in the year 2002, to the Assessing Officer that a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was taken by assessee in the form of a gift from ‘B’, the record indicates a gift of Rs. 1 lakh only.
