Assessment was sought to be reopened not on account of failure of assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts that were necessary for computation of income but on account of change of opinion of AO about the manner of computation of the deduction under Section 57, therefore, the same was invalid.
Since none of the other relevant material, which was the basis of the seizure under Section 17(1A) and the complaint under Section 17(4) of the PMLA were supplied to assessee, as the same were not even supplied by the ED to the AA. Thus, ED should forward a copy of the documents to the Adjudicating Authority immediately after a freezing order under PML Rule.
With respect to seized goods, there was neither any notice under clause (a) of Section 124 issued to assessee within six months of the seizure nor had the period of six months been extended for a further period of six months, therefore, in the absence of there being any notice as required by the first proviso even within the extended period upto one year, the consequence that ought to follow was release of the seized consignments.
CBIC was not empowered to issue circular in respect of fish meal used for making cattle / poultry / aquatic feed for clarification on GST rate as the power was to be exercised either by the Parliament by making a law as had been done in Finance Act, 2020 or by the Central Government by exercising their powers either under Section 11(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 or under Section 6(1) of the IGST Act, 2017.
Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P (Supreme Court) The submission of the appellants/promoters is that under Section 40(1) of the Act only the interest or penalty imposed by the authority can be recovered as arrears of land revenue and no recovery certificate for the principal amount as determined by the authority […]
Bhupesh Rathod Vs Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasia (Supreme Court of India) Complaint filed by Company u/s 138 of NI Act could not be denied merely because Managing Director’s name appeared first in complaint. Conclusion: Merely because Managing Director’s name appeared first as acting on behalf of the Company on the registered complaint, respondent could not contended […]
Except of absence of ‘Natural Justice Principle violation, there is no other exception that arose in the case on hand, therefore, it was a fit case to relegate assessee to alternate remedy by way of statutory appeal under Section 107 of TNGST Act and CGST Act.
Grant of bail was refused as applicant did not return the amounts due to the complainants and there was a breach of trust and faith and was against the national economy and national interest, whereby a large number of innocent investors had been duped of their hard-earned money.
Reassessment under section 148 was not justified as ‘reason to believe’ that income for the AY in question had escaped assessment was based on a mere ‘change of opinion’.
Raman Krishna Kumar Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Since assessee had not filed the Income Tax Return instead of receiving substantial income in the form of salary and had also indulged in high end transactions with respect to purchase and sale of mutual funds and with respect to credit card transactions, therefore, High Court […]
