Delhi High Court dismisses writ petition filed by Revenue and held that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being an appellate body has wide powers to call for records/examine the records. Such powers cannot be curtailed and the Revenue cannot refuse to produce the records. The Revenue claims to be aggrieved by the direction of the Income […]
Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity with the ITAT order which essentially held that the valuation by the banker, who provided credit could well be different from the valuation report for the transaction given that the assessee had purchased the property long ago. In other words, the absence of any material […]
Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure on acquisition of marketing and technical knowhow is revenue in nature as the benefit would accrue over a period of time and treatment in books of account is not relevant
All the appeals are directed against the common order dated 18.02.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in the respect of writ petitions whereby the learned Single Judge, for the reasons recorded in the order, has set aside the impugned assessment orders so far as they relate to Privilege Fee as being taxable income.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for quashment of the recovery and auction proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent UCO Bank (the Bank henceforth); for quashing the appellate order dated 9-11-2011 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad
A bare reading of the sub-section (5) of Section 22 would show that it is only after an assessment is complete under sub-section (4) of Section 22, that penalty can be imposed by the Assessing Officer. However, it can, either be imposed at the time when, the assessment order is passed, or, by way of a separate order, albeit, after the assessment order is passed. Therefore, the proposal in the show cause notice to levy penalty at the rate of 150% prior to adjudication demonstrates premeditation.
This is an appeal preferred against the judgement of the learned Single Judge, dated 12.09.2016. 2. By virtue of the said judgement, the learned Single Judge disposed of a batch of writ petitions, which included, the writ petition filed by the appellant, before us.
Deficit incurred by a trust could not be treated in the same way as that of a loss sustained by an assessee under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession‘ for such deficit to be furnished in a return and verified. The same was to be allowed to be set off against surplus […]
Mere receipt of information from any source would not by itself tantamount to reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the present case the Assessing Officer prima facie has not done the bare necessary/rudimentary enquiry into the material received before he concludes that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
Suffice it to highlight that in paras 26 and 27 of the report the Committee highlighted the modus operandi adopted by PCL and AIL to form a loop with no cash flow coming in, but sales, stocks and receivables increases. The obligation of the auditor concerning transactions which are merely book entries was highlighted i.e. […]
