(i) Whether the second proviso to Section 3(2) of the Entry Tax Act is ultra vires to the Constitution? (ii) Whether interest can be levied in the matter of late payment of entry tax under the Entry Tax Act, by virtue of the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, and, with the aid of Section 8 of the Entry Tax Act?
Interest on securities and interest on head office investment account was made chargeable pursuant to Board’s instructions No. 1923 dated 14.3.1995 and as such, this Court sees no occasion for assessee Bank to declare same in its profit and loss account, wherein it had declared interest of Rs. 39.98 Crores, on approved securities for the period 1.10.1991 to 31.3.1992.
It, therefore, further logically follows that the creditor’s creditworthiness has to be judged vis-a-vis the transactions, which have taken place between the Assessee and the creditor, and it is not the business of the Assessee to find out the source of money of his creditor or of the genuineness of the transactions, which took between the creditor and sub-creditor and/or creditworthiness of the sub-creditors, for, these aspects may not be within the special knowledge of the Assessee.
Without any concrete facts, reopening cannot be ordered merely on the presumption that the returned income is very shockingly lower than the total gross receipts.
This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges a communication dated 18th March, 1998 of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City III and the Circular dated 25th July, 1997 of the Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT).
A careful look at the reason for Rule 36 being inserted, which cannot be correlated to anyone of the matters enumerated in Clauses (a) to (r) of sub-section (2) of Section 78, will show that in the entire Telangana VAT Act, 2005, the only place where a transfer of business as a whole is spoken […]
Carrying of sharp edged weapons with a blade more than 6 inches long or 2 inches wide and spring actuated knives with a blade of any size is prohibited and that too carrying of such blades in public places. Gurudwara, though is open to public, is not a public place, it is a private place where there is Prakash of Gurugranth Sahib.
The central question that arises for consideration before this Bench is whether the words “the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner” in Section 260A (2) (a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) mean only the ‘jurisdictional’ Principal or Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) or could it include any CIT including the […]
Where monies were advanced through the mechanism of equity participation, the intention of the lender – in the present case, the assessee, was to derive income rather than to increase its investment on the capital Such being the case, if there were profits, with the assessee/lender from the investment, it would properly lie in the Revenue side of income
Court is of the considered opinion that there is no willful suppression of facts to evade tax on the part of the petitioner and it was bona fide on the part of the petitioner, it was not deliberate and in absence of finding relating to mensrea recorded by the Settlement Commission, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 deserves to be quashed.
