Assessment order passed u/s. 158BC r.w.s 143(3) / 254 dated 31.12.2019 determining the undisclosed income of about Rs. 57.43 crores against Mr.D was barred by limitation as per provisions of section 153(2A) and liable to be quashed as AO ought to have passed assessment order on 14.04.2019 whereas the impugned order was passed on 31.12.2019.
Section 153A only states that an assessment in terms thereof shall be completed in terms of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as if such return were a return required to be furnished under Section 139. It would thus suffice that in framing an assessment under Section 153A, due regard must be given to the principles of natural justice, which requirement will stand satisfied either by issuance of notice under Section 143(2) or a question-naire under Section 142(1). Therefore, a notice under Section 143(2) was not to be mandatorily issued prior to completion of an assessment in consequence of a notice under Section 153C.
Disallowance made under section 14A was not to be added for computing the book profit, therefore, AO had not erred in directing to exclude difference under section 14A for computing the big profit under section 115JB.
Assessee had to exhaust the statutory remedy provided under the Act before filing writ petition challenging the levy of service tax passed on a deceased person.
Refund of excise duty paid under protest if any borne by assessee had to be made only within a period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 notwithstanding the fact that assessee became aware of the wrong payment of tax only after the Central Board of Excise and Customs issued clarification bearing reference Order No. 2/1/2002-ST dated 24.4.2002. Thus, the period prescribed under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 had expired long before the above were clarification was issued.
AO did conduct an enquiry, called for details, the details were produced and thereafter, the assessment was completed. Therefore, the finding of the PCIT was erroneous, consequently, assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not sustainable. Also, there was no requirement in law to maintain separate books of account for claiming deduction under section 10A. However, since the deductions under these sections were available only to the eligible units, AO might call for such details or information pertaining to different units to verify the claim and quantum of exemption, if so required.
Asessee-bank had not deducted TDS under section 194A in respect of customers who had provided Form No. 15G and 15H as the prime responsibility relating to TDS deduction u/s 201 was of the recipient assessee to pay the tax directly once they filed From No. 15G/15H and any tax liability would be held as pending in recipient assessee’s cases and hence Section 201 of the Act could not be invoked as it was a recovery provision.
Since teaching of Indian Classical Music was within the field of ‘education’ and the activities of the studio were carried on in order to achieve the main object of the Trust, the same could not be construed as a business and the proviso to section 2(15) did not apply on the same.
M/s. SRF Limited Vs Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Refund could be granted only to a person who had paid the duty and not to anyone else and if the ultimate consumer could not be identified, the amount would be retained in the fund. Therefore, the subsequent issuance of […]
Topcem India Vs Union Of India And 3 Ors (Gauhati High Court) Conclusion: Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess which have already been refunded in terms of earlier decision in‘M/S SRD Nutrients Private Limited’, could not be revoked co-laterally by a Quasi Judicial Authority of the Department without taking recourse to the statutory […]
