It is very clear that the department has disposed of /sold the goods on the understanding that the first order of the adjudicating authority is the final order. At the same time the department was well aware about the pendency of the appeals before this Tribunal. Therefore the action of the department is clearly in gross violation of principles of natural justice, hence the same cannot be allowed to sustain.
Appellate authority after referring to provisions of Section 129 held that it is well settled that levy of tax & penalty cannot be based upon presumption
Income Tax Department initiated a Search & Seizure action on few groups engaged in the business of gold & diamond jewellery and real estate, on 17.11.2022. The searches were carried out at more than 30 premises spread over Patna, Bhagalpur, Dehri-on-Sone, Lucknow and Delhi. During the course of the search, large number of incriminating documents […]
National Savings (Monthly Income Account) (Amendment) Scheme, 2022 – Deposit made under this Scheme on or after the 1st day of October, 2022 shall bear interest at the rate of 6.7 per cent. per annum.
National Savings Time Deposit (Amendment) Scheme, 2022 takes effect from the date as specified in the notification. However, no one shall be adversely affected as a result of retrospective effect being given to this amendment Scheme.
Dr. Sankaran Sundar Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore) The penalty imposed u/s 271D of the I.T.Act is independent of assessment proceedings completed u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act. Even without completion of assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act, penalty u/s 271D of the I.T.Act can be imposed for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the I.T.Act. […]
CIT TDS Vs Mewar Hospital Pvt Ltd (Rajasthan High Court) Before proceeding with the matter, it will not be out of place to mention that the assessee is running a hospital within State of Rajasthan and they have entered agreement with three different doctors. The question which came up for our consideration is whether benefit […]
Rise Projects Private Limited Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Petitioner states that impugned order dated 15th July, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act has been passed without considering the detailed reply filed by the petitioner. Learned senior standing counsel for the respondents-revenue, accepts notice. He, on instructions, states that as the petitioner’s contentions have […]
Subhra Jyoti Bharali Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Gauhati High Court) Section 173 of the CrPC does not prescribe piecemeal investigation and filing of incomplete charge sheet before the court. Section 173(8) CrPC prescribes that even after filing of charge sheet further investigation can be done. In that case, if the investigating officer gathers additional evidence, […]
It is not in dispute that the said electricity is supplied to the factory of the respondent and the same is used for manufacturing activity. Merely because the wind generation plant is situated far away from the manufacturing activity, credit cannot be denied.
