Bombay High Court was annoyed for filing appeal in a matter covered by a binding precedent of the Apex Court. The Court sought an explanation from the counsel for the Income Tax Department why appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act has been filed by him when there was an authoritative
We are afraid that if the Revenue persists with such stand and as has been turned down repeatedly, that would defeat the very object and purpose of the schemes and packages devised by the States. That would also result in frustrating the entrepreneurs and defeating the purpose
We do not find how Officers lower down in the hierarchy can take decisions to file Appeals and that too against the decision of the Tribunal. The tendency not to accept any adverse verdict on facts results in frivolous Appeals being filed in this Court.
Issue- Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in upholding the CIT(A)’s order and rejecting the departmental appeal in accepting the Assessee’s plea that the contribution of Rs.39,68,000/- paid towards ‘heavy repair fund’ is covered by the principle of mutuality and is not chargeable to tax.
It is settled principle of law that seizure can not be made merely on presumption. There must be a material to show that the Section 52 Rule 58 or the procedure prescribed in the circular issued by the Commissioner has been violated.
It is undisputed that the sole basis for detention of the tanker in question and seizure of the bitumen by the Respondent No.4 was the information collected by him from the toll plaza which revealed that last four digit of the registration number of the tanker in question was similar
it is immaterial whether the shares are held by the appellant as stock-in-trade. The dividend income derived from these shares is specifically chargeable under the head Income from other sources. Consequently, it is immaterial whether the appellant is a dealer or a trader and caries on business of purchase and sale of shares.
We have heard both sides at great length and with their assistance, we have perused the order passed by the Tribunal and that of the Commissioner and the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has noted the basic facts and about which there is no dispute.
Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Anand Chauhan & others held that not providing assessee with the precise reason for transfer of his case from one jurisdiction to other amounts to violating the principles of natural justice as non-disclosure take away his right of putting forward his objections effectively.
Recently, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the matter of K. Madhav Kamath Brother & Co. v. Asst. Comm. of Central Excise, pronounced that even if service tax is paid prior to Show Cause Notice, still the penalty shall be leviable u/s 76/78, 77 of Finance Act’94.
