Dheeraj Thakran Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) Conclusion: Since the gifts in the instant case were received from parents, brother and spouse, respectively and the father had withdrawn substantial cash amount from the bank before giving the gift on various dates to his son and the gifts from brother, from mother and from spouse were not […]
Onus was on Revenue to show that the incriminating material/documents recovered at the time of search ‘belongs’ to the Assessee, in other words, it was not enough for the Revenue to show that the documents either ‘pertain’ to the Assessee or contains information that ‘relates to the Assessee.
Interest was payable under Section 234C on default in payment of advance tax installment on returned income, and not on assessed income.
Once an assessee discharged its burden, then burden shifts to AO to prove otherwise that said transaction was nothing but undisclosed income of the assessee. In this case, AO had not brought on record any evidence to prove that said sum was undisclosed income of assessee. Therefore, AO was completely erred in making additions towards unsecured loans received from three companies of assessee group.
Since Office Memorandum (OM) only prescribed the manner/procedure of calculation to determine the amount of tax in a particular eventuality in the transitional period of migration to GST Act with effect from 1st July, 2017 consequently, the Court found no merit in assessee’s challenge to quashed the said OM in law.
Anticipatory bail was granted to the Director of the Company of wrongfully availing Input Tax Credit worth Rs. 22.42 Crores on the condition that applicants should make themselves available for interrogation by the proper officer as and when required;
Orders of assessments were a quasi-judicial order passed after hearing of assessee, followed by issuance of demand notices as per the provision of JVAT Act itself and assessee had statutory remedies against the orders of assessments whose limitation commence from the date of receipt of the demand notices and not from the date of the assessment orders
Explore the CESTAT Delhi decision in Shahid Ali vs. Principal Commissioner, focusing on allegations of undervaluation and misdeclaration in ‘Food Supplements’ imports. Learn why the adjudicating authority’s penalty imposition on the proprietorship firm and its proprietor was deemed double jeopardy.
Jagadish Nangineni Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Punjab and Haryana High Court) Conclusion: Since ED alleged that both assessees were actively involved in the planning and execution of all the transactions involving repeated transfer of funds and were accused of serious economic offences, therefore, grant of anticipatory bail to assessees at this stage would certainly result […]
While before grant of bail the Public Prosecutor was required to be given an opportunity to oppose the plea for bail and that where the Public Prosecutor opposed such plea the Court could order release of the accused on bail only after recording a satisfaction that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the person to be released was not guilty of the offence he was accused of and that while on bail he was not likely to commit any offence.
