Vishnu Aroma Pouching Pvt Ltd Vs. Union Of India (Gujarat High Court) In a magic show, every spectator is well aware that magic does not exist but still at the end he is amazed and left in awe by the magician. The so called magic happens right infront of their eyes but unable to decode […]
Shri R. Bhoopathy Vs CIT (Madras High Court) he scourge of Capitation Fee by Medical and Engineering Colleges is an infamous and thoroughly extortionist act that is going on in the education sector in our country and it is almost a known fact that these so called Educational Institutions act more like Business Houses rather […]
Purnima Komalkant Sharma Vs DCIT (Gujarat High Court) In the given case, the petitioner is an individual and engaged in the business of real estate and transportation and ship breaking. The return of income was accepted without any scrutiny. Thereafter, a search action took place at the premises of the petitioner. Upon conclusion of such proceedings, […]
Once the Department i.e. the Assessing Officer had certain information, material, or document before him during the assessment proceeding, irrespective of the source of such information, material, or document, the Assessee cannot be blamed for non-disclosure thereof.
Since there was an order of the Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) in relation to the assessment year in respect of which assessment was sought to be reopened, AO had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment as once an order had been passed under section 245D by Settlement Commission, assessment for year stood concluded.
Bombay High Court case – Ankita Choksey challenges re-opening notice under Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessing Officer’s jurisdictional challenge discussed.
Firstly, we may observe that the learned Single Judge was absolutely right in holding that the Assessee, having not raised an objection before the Assessing Authority to the re-opening of the assessment under Section 147/148 of the Act, should be deemed to have acquiesced to the same. Nothing prevented the Assessee from raising the objection, which could have been dealt with by the Assessing Authority in accordance with law.
Pr. CIT Vs M/s RST India Ltd. (Bombay High Court) It is not disputed that upon termination of the contract, the assessee’s entire business of soliciting freight on behalf of the US based company came to be terminated. It may be that assessee had, other business. Insofar as the question of taxing the receipts arising […]
Electricity has all the necessary trappings of ‘articles’ or ‘things’ and the benefit of additional depreciation cannot be denied. As held by the Constitution Bench, electricity is capable of abstraction, transmission, transfer, delivery, possession, consumption and use like any other movable property.
Veena Devi Karnani Vs ITO (Delhi High Court) Rule 127(2) clearly states that the addresses to which a notice or summons or requisition or order or any other communication may be delivered or transmitted shall be either available in the PAN database of the assessee or the address available in the income tax return to […]
