Search action was carried out on residential premises of assessee. Several incriminating documents were found and seized. Assessee was issued with notice to file Income Tax Return and seeking details for seven assessment years within 5 days.
The alleged misdeclaration in the year of manufacture of the machinery to be imported by the appellant to the Directorate General of Foreign Trade ( DGFT ) did not fall within the purview of Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
Assessee, had filed an Insolvency Petition under section 10 of the Provisional Insolvency Act, seeking to be declared insolvent due to heavy business losses incurred in his tobacco trade.
Aggrieved by this order, assessee filed an appeal before Tribunal. It was held that CIT(E) had not examined the objects and activities of assessee trust which were the twin conditions for granting registration under Section 12A/12AB
According to the appellant, Respondent Nos. 1 through 26 were creditors in the class of the Project Spaze Arrow, and in order to start a CIRP against the CD, they filed an application under Section 7 that only pertained to the Project Spaze Arrow.
The Customs officials intercepted and seized the truck in Muzaffarpur, State of Bihar. The vehicle was taken to the Customs office and the vehicle and Areca Nut goods were seized in the Customs office.
The matter was remanded back to AO to review the non-taxability of interest from Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) as part of the Corpus Fund under Section 11(1)(d) and and the decision of CIT(E) in respect of the condonation application in filing Form 10B belatedly.
Assessee claimed to have submitted details / documents / explanation as required by AO for the purpose of assessment in the case of assessee under section 143(3) during the course of assessment proceedings.
They argued that, based on this ruling, despite the investigation, search, and seizure being conducted by an improper officer, the evidence could still be used, and the show cause notice issued by a proper officer should not be set aside.
Assessee could not have been subjected to additions in case of search/survey operations merely on basis of statement recorded under section 132(4) unless and until some corroborative evidence was found in support of such admission.
