Madras High Court upholds assessment of excess gold jewellery as unexplained investment; rejects plea based on Board Instruction dated 11.5.1994.
The respondent-assessee had submitted that their total turnover was Rs.4697.23 crores, as against investment in shares of Rs.2.95 crores. In the previous assessment years they were maintaining dual portfolio of investment (capital asset) and stock-in-trade (trading asset).
In the present case, there was no basis for the AO to determine that the true value of the property was Rs. 1.25 crores, by adopting the return on capital method. The AO was under a duty first to ascertain what was according to him the true cost of the property.
On a plain reading of Section 153C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer of the searched person must be “satisfied” that inter alia any document seized or requisitioned “belongs to” a person other than the searched person.
The respondent-assessee, a partnership firm, was engaged at the relevant time in manufacture of organic chemicals. Under an agreement dated 9th June, 1987 with M/s India Craft, the respondent-assessee purchased 630 metric tonnes Isobutanol by sale on high-sea basis.
This is one more instance of the Revenue urging before this Court that firstly a film production unit or a Company is not an industrial undertaking within the meaning of section 80IB of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for short the said Act).
It would not be possible to proceed to recover the amount of tax from the assessee. The assessee cannot be doubly saddled with the tax liability. Deduction of tax at source is only one of the modes. Once this mode is adopted and by virtue of the statutory provisions the person responsible
As provided by s. 205 of the Act, where tax is deductible at source, the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to which it has been deducted from the relevant income. Thus, from the aforesaid provisions it emerges that as soon as the tax is actually deducted
Whether the CESTAT has erred in holding that Service tax is not required to be paid on goods used in the repairing process on which Excise duty and VAT has been paid on the value of the said goods, ignoring the fact that as per the contract the respondents were under an obligation to replace the damaged parts and to maintain the transformers in a proper working condition.
the writ petition, which has been admitted by an order passed the Division Bench on 6 August 2014, there is a challenge to the validity of Rule 73 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 on the ground that they are ultra vires the provisions of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and the Advocates Act, 1961 insofar as it permits persons who are not Advocates ‘to appear and represent’ before the authorities established under the Act of 2008.
