The Constitutional Bench ruled that allows Circumstantial Evidence did not dilute the requirement of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since there were no circumstances brought on record which would prove the demand for gratification, therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act were not established and consequently, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) would not be attracted.
The profit margin forgone by assessee could not be held to be expenditure in creating intangible or goodwill as there was no expenditure incurred by assessee except those that were set out in the profit and loss account and disallowing such expenditure by AO and consequently arriving at a positive total income chargeable to tax was without any basis and not in accordance with law.
Reopening of the assessment based on a different method of computation or application of the section was nothing else but a change of opinion as there was no failure to make a full and true disclosure ans the same was impermissible in law.
AO had applied his mind while doing the assessment therefore, the investigation by AO could not be called ‘lack of investigation’ and revision order passed under section 263 was quashed.
Assessee had submitted the C and F Declaration Forms with the respondent after passing of the impugned assessment orders, assessee was directed to file a fresh application under Section 84 of the TNVAT Act, 2006, seeking for rectification of the impugned assessment orders, enclosing the C and F Declaration Forms and all other required documents, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of order.
Where assessee had offered business receipts amounting to Rs 41,81,800/- in his return of income which was sufficient to make business advances of Rs 8,05,000/- there was no justifiable reason to not accept the entries in the cash book corresponding to advances of Rs 8,05,000/- made out of said business receipts.
When the drill ship was located in an area which was outside the territorial purview of the Finance Act, of 1994, service tax could not be demanded on repair and maintenance work carried out in non-designated areas.
Since assessee did not file the Audit Report in Form No.56F as required under the law, AO had rightly disallowed deduction claimed u/s.10AA.
Where income was offered on presumptive basis under section 44AD, there was no need to maintain books of accounts therefore addition made against the vegetable vendor was deleted for failure to substantiate the unexplained cash deposit.
Penalty leviable u/s.271AAA was 10% of the concealed income whereas under section 271(1)(c), the penalty was leviable at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, therefore, the claim of AO that show cause notice had been issued under both under section 271AAA and section 271(1)(c) was not correct and it was not a typographical error.
