The Hon’ble High Court, Madras noted that the summon were issued to the Petitioner instead of the counsel for the Petitioner (in whose name vakalatnama was given). Thus, there is a possibility that the Petitioner would not have informed about the summons to their counsel regarding the personal hearing and the same resulted in passing of the Impugned order without hearing the learned counsel of the Petitioner.
Ganga Devi Somani Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Here, from the facts of the case it appears that Company had voluntarily declared its intention to pay tax and 80% of the tax was paid prior to the complaint. The Income Tax Department was instructed regarding the dues from the GST Department and there […]
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Income Tax Department has clarified the newly introduced provision of Section 194Q of the Act by their communication at Ext.P7 which unequivocally states that buyers are supposed to deduct tax at source within the sale consideration payable to the Oil Companies.
Sudarsanan P. S. Vs CIT (Kerala High Court) The last question that was argued by Adv.Arun Raj related to the claim under Section 69C of the Act for the payment of Rs.3,26,380/-. As mentioned earlier, when satisfactory explanation is not offered by the assessee, the assessing officer is entitled to draw inferences. The expenditure to […]
Union Of India Vs Merchem India Pvt. Ltd (Kerala High Court) It is significant to note that the statute does not provide for any provision for lapsing of unutilized input tax credit for non filing of TRAN-1. The input tax credit is required by law to be credited to the electronic credit ledger of an […]
Ess Advertising (Mauritius) S.N.C. Et Compagnie Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) No Power to Carry Out Reassessment On Same Material And Facts Available On Record And Rubber Stamp Approval Held Invalid Following Synfonia Decision Of Own Court Thus, the moot question, which arises for consideration, is: should the respondent be permitted to assess the petitioners‟ […]
Karti P. Chidambaram Vs Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) (Madras High Court) All these writ petitions are filed, challenging the Show Cause Notices issued under Section 153C of the Act. The procedures for assessment / reassessment are yet to commence. The petitioners are expected to avail the opportunity and defend their case in the […]
PCIT Vs Brahma Centre Development Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Revision by CIT Held Invalid Where Interdiction of Assessment Order In Substitution of View Taken By AO Is Not Permissible Under Section 263 To answer this issue, one would have to bear in mind, the following aspects. i. Was there an enquiry carried out by […]
Avon Udhyog Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court) Without pronouncing upon petitioner’s contention that on passing of a period of 30 days of the reply, the suspension stands annulled or vitiated, this Court hastens to add that provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 22 clearly mandates an order to be passed within 30 days […]
The Assessing Officer having arrived at his subjective satisfaction based on additional fresh material placed before him that the petitioner had not fully and truly disclosed all the material facts necessary for his assessment for the relevant assessment year and prima facie his income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, he was fully justified in initiating the proceedings under section 147/148 of the said Act.
