It was a case where the statutory procedure mandated in section 144C had been attempted to be by passed by merely mentioning the name of the assessee as the amalgamated entity with its former name and the name of amalgamating company.
The invitation card for the marriage ceremony in Guru vaguer was also placed on record as Annexure P-3. Assessee was said to have been wearing a gold chain weighing 32 gms which was detained by the Department.
Penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with a notice during the Covid-19 pandemic was deleted due to disruptions caused by lockdowns during outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic and the Supreme Court’s extension of limitation periods.
Since CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal without addressing key issues raised against the assessment order, therefore, the matter was remanded back to CIT(A) as CIT(A) should have examined this issue by reviewing the assessment records.
Addition based on the District Valuation Officer’s (DVO) report, which exceeded the stamp duty value was upheld as assessee challenged to DVO’s valuation was arbitrary without any supporting evidence.
Assessee claimed deduction of IMC Transfer Expenses, City Environment Expenses, Contribution and Aid Expenses, Land Acquisition and Diversion Expenses which the AO disallowed the same.
According to AO, the provisions were not allowable who vide show cause notice asked assessee to furnish details of the provisions made as well as justification for the claim and the assessee did not file any reply to the show cause notice issued.
Mere uploading of notices and orders on the GST portal might not be sufficient to fulfill the requirement of proper service, especially when it prevented assessee from being aware of the proceedings.
Assessee was specifically asked to justify its claim as the agreement had to be with (a) Central Government (b) State Government (c) Local Authority or (d) Statutory Authority and LMRCL did not fit in any of the four categories.
Appellant had approached this Court by way of the present intra Court appeal. It was held that BoD had failed to accord any reason as to how the mere act of dishonor of cheques issued by assessee would amount to misconduct.
