By this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner inter alia prays for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus calling for the record and files in respect of the service of the Petitioner from the office of the Respondents and after perusal of the same to declare the letters dated 30th October, 2012
Assessing Officer to delete the 12% interest charged by him, on the interest free deposit received by the assessee, to determine the ALV of the rented property ignoring the well settled judicial principle that what is important is the real nature of transactions in the relied on case supra and not the facts?
In view of the fact that the Revenue has been consistently taking a view that the income earned on investments is taxable under the head capital gains no difference in facts and /or in law has been pointed out to take a different view for the subject Assessment Year
Main thrust of the appellant’s case is that the provisions of Section 68 of the Act as amended could not be given retrospective operation and if that position of law was accepted, then it was not open to the C.I.T. to direct an enquiry to ascertain the source and genuineness of the sums being projected by the appellants as capital receipts.
The withdrawals have been found to be subsequently redeposited after a gap of two or three months which is not probable. The assessee therefore we find has not been able to link the cash withdrawn from the bank with cash deposit we therefore uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) treating the cash deposit of Rs. 14,20,212/- as unexplained income of the assessee.
Proceeding to take cognizance of a report submitted by SEBI the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants constituted a Disciplinary Committee, forming a prima-facie opinion that the respondent was guilty of professional misconduct. Proceedings were initiated by the Disciplinary Committee.
The Constitution contemplates various scenarios in which a Governor can exercise his discretion dehors the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, as for example, the powers under Article 174(2): dissolution of legislative assembly; Article 356: advising the President for proclamation of emergency; Article 167: calling for information from the Chief Minister etc, Article […]
On the question of law presently before the court, the primary consideration is whether the AO had the jurisdiction to make the additions to the assessment under section 158BC of the Act. To analyze this, it is necessary to address the grounds of each such addition made, and assess if the AO had jurisdiction in conducting the block assessment within the meaning of section 158BC, or if this was indeed not within the purview of the AO’s jurisdiction.
All the funds available at that point of time of merger, available with the respondent / assessee were, in the course of the year, deployed in the business of the respondent / assessee. Thus, AO could not have disallowed discount on commercial paper and interest on Non-Convertible Debentures.
It appears to the authority that there is a systematic design which rightly necessitated the authority to lift the corporate veil. It is also found by the authority that at the relevant point of time, the company was of one man show and substantially managed and controlled by petitioner and that conclusion is arrived at on the basis of materials on record which are indicated specifically that substantial cash flow and substantial increase in capital is only after induction of petitioner as a director and certificate of commencement of business was obtained by the company only after petitioner being joined in the company.
