Where notice under section 143(2) was not issued within the time limit prescribed in proviso to section 143(2), the assessment framed under section 143(3) pursuant to such notice was invalid and accordingly, the same was liable to be quashed.
Wholesale Trading Services P Ltd. Vs ICAI (Delhi High Court) Before concluding, it is also relevant to note that the petitioner has been filing various petitions before this Court in respect of complaints made before ICAI, despite having no particular interest in the matter. As noticed above, the petitioner has no connection or dealing with […]
Kanhaiyalal Dudheria Vs JCIT (Karnataka High Court) Assessee has incurred the expenditure towards construction of 169 houses for the villagers who had lost their home due to natural calamity. In order to cater to the needs of those destitute persons who had lost the roof over their head on account of natural calamity, assessee constructed […]
Delhi High Court rules Customs can’t proceed against legal heirs of a deceased assessee. Details of the case Amandeep Singh Sehgal vs Commissioner of Customs.
The issue under consideration is if Assessee remained absent on more than one occasions and appeal decided on merits then whether it will be called as Ex-parte order?
Where non-resident agents appointed by assessee for procuring export orders did not have permanent establishment in India and their activities as commission agents are being carried out outside India, merely because a portion of the sale to the overseas purchasers took place in India, would not make assessee liable to deduct tax at source under section 195.
Vass Impex Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court) in CBIC circular dated 3rd April, 2018 It has been decided that all such taxpayers, who tried but were not able to complete TRAN-1 procedure (original or revised) of filing them on or before 27.12.2017 due to IT-glitch, shall be provided the facility to […]
Once an agreement to sell is executed in favour of some person, the said person gets a right to get the property transferred in his favour and, consequently, some right of the vendor is extinguished. Therefore, the agreement to sell which had been executed on 13th August 2010 was considered as the date on which the property, i.e. the agricultural land, had been transferred instead of 3rd July 2012 on which the sale-deed came to be executed and assessee was entitled to claim the benefit of section 54F as it had invested in purchase of residential house on 22nd April 2010 which was within the prescribed time limit.
Notice under section 143(2) was issued prior to the filing of the return of income which was invalid and the assessment order passed would also be invalid.
Ess Infraproject Private Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The issue of the saving of Rule 5A(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1992 on introduction of CGST Act, 2017 is an issue that requires detailed consideration. This would be appropriately done at the final hearing. Thus, granting of interim relief at this stage would […]
