We would not hesitate to observe that the lower authorities which have hushed through the facts to arrive at a conclusion on the basis of principle of preponderance of human probability, had however absolutely failed to appreciate that the said principle could have been validly applied only on the basis of a considerate view as regards the facts of the case in totality, and not merely on the basis of the stand alone statement of the aforesaid third party, viz. Sh. Mukesh Choksi.
In this case, assessee gave her funds to the PMS Manager as in investment and there is no involvement of assessee in day to day transaction of the funds. The result of profit and loss in the end of the year from PMS Account is a capital loss.
In the case of AVTEC Limited Vs. DCIT, Delhi High Court has held that- 1. Assessee is under no obligation to file the same document during assessment in each AY. The AO is to look at the litigation history of the assessee himself and cannot expect the assessee to inform him. 2. principle of consistency is […]
Opportunity of being heard is little more than serving a notice on assessee. It is not an empty formality. Without giving a proper opportunity to assessee, revision proceedings u/s. 263 cannot be finalized as the provisions of Section 263 mandates that the CIT may pass such orders after giving an opportunity of being heard. Since […]
In ACIT v. Tripti Menthol Industries, the ITAT, Ahmedabad bench held that Security Guards employed by the assessee-unit must be considered as part of the workers engaged in the manufacturing process for the purpose of giving benefit under Section 80IB(2)(iv) of the Income Tax Act.
These are 11 appeals filed by the Revenue against various impugned orders. As the issue involved in all these appeals are similar and the respondent is same, we take up all these appeals together for disposal. The respondents are registered with the Department for service tax purposes. They have filed refund claims under rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) dated 14-3-2006.
Notice issued under Section 274 must reveal application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. It was further observed that vagueness and ambiguity in the notice deprives the assessee of reasonable opportunity to contest the same.
Challenging the order dated 3-5-2013 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-7, Mumbai, the assessing officer (AO) has filed the present appeal. Assessee-company, deriving income from house property, filed its return of income on 18-10-2007, declaring loss of Rs. 1.5 crores. The assessing officer completed the assessment, under section 143(3) of the Act, on 4-12-2009, determining its income at Rs. (-)9.46 lakhs.
The Delhi ITAT, in a recent ruling, held that imposing penalty by quoting wrong section would not itself make the entire proceedings invalid if the assessee had not raised any objection during pre-assessment stage and has co-operated with the proceedings.
A full-Bench of the Central Information Commission recently refused to direct the RBI to disclose list of defaulters and non-performing assets, in view of a similar issue being under consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Center for Public Interest Litigation v. Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., WP(s) (C) No 573/2003.
