Addition made under section 68 consequent to notice issued under section 153C was deleted because the AO had initiated assessment proceedings under section 153C for the relevant assessment years without pointing out or referring to any seized document belonging to those years and, therefore, there was no prima facierationale or logic behind issuing the said notice.
After issuing notice under section 153A revenue can carry out re-assessment or assessment with respect to the six immediate prior years and the year in which the search is carried out. This does not require any incriminating material recovered on search relating to those prior years; in which there is no time left, on the date of search, for an assessment under section 143.
High Court in the case of assessee had held that by taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and punishment which was liable to be involved where assessee was indulged in issuing fake invoices without actual supply of goods with an intention to fraudulently avail the input tax credit, accused assessee’s were given anticipatory bail for the offence punishable under Section 137 of GST Act, 2017 subject to certain conditions.
In the present case, the writ was filed by one of the student involved in the ragging who was suspended from the current academic year by the disciplinary committee of the institution. In the writ the student plead that being the bright student such suspension would ruin his future.
We have already found that Form-29B is not at all significant for processing of the return as is seen from the facts of the case which indicate that such processing having been done far earlier to the filing of such statement
In terms of the provisions of section 245H of the Act, no immunity from penalty and prosecution can be granted by the ITSC since the complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under section 276 CC of the Act, was instituted before the receipt of the application under section 245C.
PCIT Vs Hardik Bharat Patel (Bombay High Court) CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2016 dated 29.2.2016 with regard to the issue of taxability of surplus on sale of shares and securities, – whether as capital gain or business income in case of long term holdings of shares and securities i.e in excess of 12 months. […]
In this matter learned counsel for the G.S.T. Council is unable to tell as to whether the Tribunal is constituted or not. Learned standing counsel appearing for the State is also unable to tell as to whether the State has moved in the matter or not.
Mono Steel India Ltd. Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) 1. Mr. Paresh Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that for recovery of a sum of rupees three crore and odd, six bank accounts of the petitioner have been provisionally attached by issuing notices under section 83 of the Gujarat Goods and […]
PCIT Vs Vembu Vaidyanathan (Bombay High Court) The controversy between the assessee and the revenue revolves around the question as to when the assessee can be stated to have acquired the capital asset. The assessee argued that the residential unit in question was acquired on the date on which the allotment letter was issued by the […]
