Assessee is not absolved of penalty because the additional income has been declared to buy peace. It must follow therefore that the above strategy (buy peace) by itself will not justify imposition of penalty, unless the requirement of the section under which the penalty is imposed are satisfied.
Revenue, has contended that the assessee’s business is not a new industrial undertaking. According to him, the assessee has also miserably failed to establish that it has spent more than 50% of the plant’s book value on any renovation or modernisation.
A division bench of Madras High Court recently invalidated an assessment order against M/s. Cairn India Ltd. The primary object of the Assessee is to carry on exploration and production of oil and gas in India. For this purpose, it had acquired participating interest in various oil and gas blocks.
It is obvious that the appeals should be listed on the judicial side, even if, there is an issue or debate with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Such matters cannot be decided on the Administrative side, by the Registry of the CESTAT, even when it is of the opinion that the appellants have not approached the right or correct Bench of the Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction.
Whether the ITAT has committed an error of law in upholding the dis allowance of Rs. 3,08,79,171 in respect of Sales Tax Recoverable account, under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act?
K.K.Ramesh Vs. Union of India (Madras High Court) By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner seems to have been aggrieved by the improper implementation of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, which were passed during the year 2017. 3. […]
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the notice dated 28.03.2017 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and also the order dated 25.09.2017 whereby the objections preferred by the petitioner questioning the issuance of notice dated 28.03.2017 was rejected.
Mrs. S. Savithri Vs. ITO (Karnataka High Court) The Noticee even if deceased, the Legal Representatives or the persons who inherit the estate of the deceased persons will have to comply with the said Notice for furnishing the requisite information. The very purpose of the provisions of Section 133 (6) of the Act is to […]
The powers of reassessment u/S.147/148 of the Act have to be invoked with great amount of circumspection and the relevant material on record, on the basis of which, a “reasonable opinion” can be framed in contrast with a mere change of opinion for initiating the reassessment proceedings.
PCIT Vs Deepak Vegpro (P) Ltd. (Rajasthan High Court) Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 1-4-2016, has enlarged the definition of income given under section 2 (24) by inserting sub-clause (xviii), which reads as under :– (xviii) assistance in the form of a subsidy or grant or cash incentive or duty drawback or waiver or […]
