Sudarsanan P. S. Vs CIT (Kerala High Court) The last question that was argued by Adv.Arun Raj related to the claim under Section 69C of the Act for the payment of Rs.3,26,380/-. As mentioned earlier, when satisfactory explanation is not offered by the assessee, the assessing officer is entitled to draw inferences. The expenditure to […]
Union Of India Vs Merchem India Pvt. Ltd (Kerala High Court) It is significant to note that the statute does not provide for any provision for lapsing of unutilized input tax credit for non filing of TRAN-1. The input tax credit is required by law to be credited to the electronic credit ledger of an […]
Ess Advertising (Mauritius) S.N.C. Et Compagnie Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) No Power to Carry Out Reassessment On Same Material And Facts Available On Record And Rubber Stamp Approval Held Invalid Following Synfonia Decision Of Own Court Thus, the moot question, which arises for consideration, is: should the respondent be permitted to assess the petitioners‟ […]
Karti P. Chidambaram Vs Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) (Madras High Court) All these writ petitions are filed, challenging the Show Cause Notices issued under Section 153C of the Act. The procedures for assessment / reassessment are yet to commence. The petitioners are expected to avail the opportunity and defend their case in the […]
PCIT Vs Brahma Centre Development Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Revision by CIT Held Invalid Where Interdiction of Assessment Order In Substitution of View Taken By AO Is Not Permissible Under Section 263 To answer this issue, one would have to bear in mind, the following aspects. i. Was there an enquiry carried out by […]
Avon Udhyog Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court) Without pronouncing upon petitioner’s contention that on passing of a period of 30 days of the reply, the suspension stands annulled or vitiated, this Court hastens to add that provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 clearly mandates an order to be passed within 30 days […]
The Assessing Officer having arrived at his subjective satisfaction based on additional fresh material placed before him that the petitioner had not fully and truly disclosed all the material facts necessary for his assessment for the relevant assessment year and prima facie his income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, he was fully justified in initiating the proceedings under section 147/148 of the said Act.
Court is not satisfied that the Petitioner has made out any case for interference by the Court at the present stage, i.e. the stage of issuance of the notice for reopening of the assessment under Section 147
Raju Bhupendra Desai Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) There is also no merit in the submission of Mr. Patel that the respondent was carrying out fishing and roving inquiry completely on incorrect facts and based on the borrowed belief of DCIT Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad. It may be noted that merely because in the reasons recorded […]
When the Commission itself categorically made a finding that it was not possible to settle the matter and documents and evidences were to be examined by the Adjudicating Authority, then there was no much scope for the High Court to interfere with the orders passed and by sending the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority, assessee would also get an opportunity to produce all the documents and evidences to establish his case. Thus, sssessee had not established any acceptable reasons for the purpose of interfering with the order passed by the Settlement Commission.
