Proceedings under Section 148 of the Act which commenced with the notice dated 3rd April, 2012 issued to VBPPL were itself void ab initio for the simple reason that on that day VBPPL was not in existence as a result of the order dated 20th February, 2013 of the High Court approving its amalgamation with the Petitioner with effect from 1st April, 2012. The question of revival of such proceedings at a later point in time, with there being no change to the legal position regarding VBPPL having ceased to exist, does not arise.
Assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions before the Appellate Authorities but is also entitled to raise additional claims. The Appellate Authorities have jurisdiction to deal with additional grounds, which were available when the return was filed.
The findings of the Disciplinary Committee by no stretch of imagination can be said to be binding on the criminal court where the accusation is to be proved on the basis of evidence adduced before it in accordance with law. Moreover, the findings do not render the substratum of accusation of conspiracy between the petitioner and the other accused persons in extending unjustified financial assistance to the borrowers in the instant case patently absurd or inherently improbable
CIT (Appeals) in a detailed judgement, reversed the order of the Assessing Officer holding that if at all the transaction was held to be sham, the additions can be made in the case of the firm and not the partners.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. M/s.Urban Infrastructure Venture Capital Ltd has allowed a tenants’ claim for depreciation towards capital expenditure incurred on the leased premises.
The only question is whether the guarantee commission paid to the bankers for securing timely repayment of credit facility and loan from financial institutions for the purpose of machinery and equipments is revenue expenditure. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Kinetic Engineering Ltd (supra) was dealing precisely with the said issue, wherein, […]
The petitioner’s first and foremost contention is that the same transaction cannot be taxed under the Finance Act for service tax and VAT. Further, it is contended that there is no transfer of right to use the goods and the contract between the petitioner and the BPCL is a non-exclusive contract and the installation and facility is used by the petitioner for themselves, for BPCL as well as IOC and the observation of the Assessing Officer that there is a transfer of right in using the goods is an incorrect finding
S. 145A: Irrespective of the method of accounting followed, the unutilized Cenvat credit does not constitute income and cannot be directly added to the closing stock. The assessee is entitled to follow the exclusive method and value the closing stock by excluding the modvat credit
The AO’s reason for re-opening is that along with the certificate in Form 56F, which was the certificate of the CA, the working sheet of deduction was not enclosed. That was not a requirement of law. What Form 56F has to be accompanied with is specified under the Income Tax Rules itself. The mere fact […]
S. 271(1)(c): If the basis on which penalty is initiated by the AO and the basis on which the quantum is confirmed on merits by the Tribunal are different, penalty cannot be levied
