Assessee challenged this, arguing the procedure under Section 148A was not followed. The Supreme Court ruled that notices after 31.03.2021 had to follow the amended Section 148A.
Assessee, i.e., the father of the minor, Mr. Yogesh Mafatlal Bhansali had originally filed his income tax return declaring a total income of ₹2,71,630, which was accepted after a limited scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3).
Sale of liquid carbon dioxide was liable to be taxed at 5% as Heading No.2811 21 specifically mentioned carbon dioxide, it may however be noted that there was no qualification that carbon dioxide should be in a gaseous form.
Assessee was importing food products like Sherbet from the Kingdom of Bhutan. As per assessee he would fall under Section 3(2-C) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax (Seventh Amendment) Act, 2002.
Assessee was predominantly engaged in activities of imparting education and also involving the certain educational institutions. Assessee had filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 on disclosing nil income.
Assessee was a partnership firm engaged in real estate development, had undertaken a housing project named Aakash Nidhi. It claimed deduction under section 80-IB(10) amounting to Rs. 2,51,07,390 on the entire profit of the project comprising Wings A to G.
Crimp pumps imported were classifiable under positive displacement pumps (CTI 8413 5010 / 8413 5090) and not as mounts and heads for toilet sprays under CTI 9616 1020 as claimed by the Customs authorities.
Unless there were exceptional reasons like violation of the principles of natural justice or such other exceptional reasons, a challenge against an order under section 148A ought not to be entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Since the business sales were accepted as genuine and only the purchases were routed through accommodation entries, only a part of the purchases needed adjustment to reflect possible inflation of expenses confirming the restriction of bogus purchase addition to 5% and when additions were made on an estimated basis, penalty for concealment under Section 271(1)(c) could not be imposed.
An assessment order passed by AO was quashed on the reason that assessment year was beyond the ten-year outer ceiling limit prescribed by Section 153A. Assessee challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by AO and consequent passing of the Assessment Order. Assessee challenged the issuance of notice u/s 153A for the assessment year 2008-09 on the reasoning that the said notice was issued beyond the period of limitation.
