Pr. CIT Vs Samtel India LTD (Delhi High Court) From the facts of this case it is clear that the assessee disclosed all the particulars of his income. The AO has disallowed his claim without holding it to be bogus or false. Hence, the genuineness of the loss occurred is not at question here. The […]
When fraud is played, which is apparently prima facie apparent from the records, then the finality of a decree cannot be allowed to precipitate. The said principle is fortified by the Supreme Court in {(2007) 7 SCC 482}.
Sonia Gandhi & Oscar Fernandes Vs. ACIT and Rahul Gandhi Vs. PCIT (Delhi High Court) The entire premise of the reassessment notices in this case is that the nondisclosure of the taxing event, i.e. allotment of shares (and the absence of any declaration as to value) deprived the AO of the opportunity to look into […]
Petitioner and her co-accused in connivance with each other had made 35 fake firms and after making fake entries had issued invoices involving tax amount of more than Rupees Ten Crores. In her statement recorded on 02.08.2018, petitioner has admitted that she had prepared fake firms after accepting fee from her co-accused on the basis of fake ID’s and documents. The firms were misused for evading GST by Sandeep Goyal and Rajesh Arora. Case is still under investigation.
Court held that interest on fixed deposits in the bank would be profits and gains derived from any business of an industrial undertaking. The same reasoning would apply to extend deductions under Section 80IA of the Act for the compensation received for non supply of spare parts. T
Union Of India Vs The Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow (Allahabad High Court) In the present case it is an admitted fact that the revisionist disputed the liability of payment of tax and that the revisionist never admitted liability to pay any tax on the transaction in question and this fact that the revisionist is […]
n the present petition, the petitioners who are themselves active tax consultants and tax practitioners have challenged the vires of section 47 of CGST Act. They are obviously indirectly concerned with the same. As noted, they pointed out that there are millions of dealers who would be adversely affected by the provisions made therein.
Without adjudicating the said issue, the second respondent cannot proceed to recover the amount, that too, by issuing a notice against a dead person. Hence, the impugned notice is held to be not sustainable in law.
M/s. Vibgyor Texotech Ltd. Vs Board of Directors State of Bank of India (Bombay High Court) Indisputedly, order dated 16.3.2017 passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 has attained the finality and has been executed. The Petitioner herein has not challenged the order dated 16.3.2017 either by filing an application under Section 17 of […]
Dulraj U. Jain Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Section 147 / Section 148– Reasons recorded do not specify, prima-facie, the quantum of tax which has escaped assessment but merely states that it would be atleast be Rs.1,00,000/-. Prima-facie, we are of the view that the reasons recorded do not indicate reasonable belief of the Assessing Officer himself to issue the impugned […]
