In view of law laid down by Apex Court in case of Poolpandi & Others v. Superintendent, Central Excise & Others, presence of counsel refusal during interrogation/recording the statement of a person under Customs Act would not be violative of Article 20 (3) and 21 of Constitution of India.
Court be very slow in interpreting the statutes where intention legislature is to curb the evasion of tax. This is a peculiar where the Government has granted the benefit under the only to the persons who are not covered under Section and other proceedings.
Right to carry on trade and profession including right to convey property in course of such business is an essential fundamental right enshrined under Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India and the same do not stand eclipsed by the continuing incarceration of a prisoner.
Main thrust of the appellant’s case is that the provisions of Section 68 of the Act as amended could not be given retrospective operation and if that position of law was accepted, then it was not open to the C.I.T. to direct an enquiry to ascertain the source and genuineness of the sums being projected by the appellants as capital receipts.
In this case the bonus was determined after finalisation of accounts in the month of September 2009. The same related to income for the period ended 31st March 2009. The company which is the employer of the assessee did not deduct TDS of the said income till filing of income tax return by the assessee.
TDS Rates Chart for Financial Year 2017-18/ Assessment Year 2018-19 vide Finance Act 2017 i.e Budget 2017-18. We have updated the TDS rate chart considering the amendments made by Finance Act, 2017.
Assessing officers completely erred in reopening assessments on the basis of either a suspicion that there is suppression of income or on the basis that persons in the same line of business are returning a higher income. Without even mentioning the comparables, no initiation of proceedings under section 147 can be made.
It was not even alleged that they collected a amount as ‘duty’ but not paid it to the exchequer. None of situation specified in section 11D is applicable in the present case. In fact, in such a situation, there should not have any grievance to the parties since the appellants had paid the amount whatever they collected and paid it completely.
Where assessee paid amount to deliveryman to deliver the newspapers and delivery persons were nothing but casually engaged labourers and they have no other work to perform and assessee had wrongly debited the amount as commission in its books, AO was not justified in making dis allowance under section 40(a)(ia) for no TDS by only giving weight age to nomenclature and without seeing the real purpose for payment.
Kolkata bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently held that interest expenses can’t be disallowed when assessee had own funds which was more than the investments yielded tax free income.
