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.
Court is not satisfied that the Petitioner has made out any case for interference by the Court at the present stage, i.e. the stage of issuance of the notice for reopening of the assessment under Section 147
Raju Bhupendra Desai Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) There is also no merit in the submission of Mr. Patel that the respondent was carrying out fishing and roving inquiry completely on incorrect facts and based on the borrowed belief of DCIT Central Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad. It may be noted that merely because in the reasons recorded […]
When the Commission itself categorically made a finding that it was not possible to settle the matter and documents and evidences were to be examined by the Adjudicating Authority, then there was no much scope for the High Court to interfere with the orders passed and by sending the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority, assessee would also get an opportunity to produce all the documents and evidences to establish his case. Thus, sssessee had not established any acceptable reasons for the purpose of interfering with the order passed by the Settlement Commission.
Charity is clearly defined as relief of the poor, education, yoga, medical relief, preservation of environment, etc., Thus public charitable trust donating to activities other than education cannot be denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Therefore, the conclusion of the Assessing Officer is totally unwarranted.
Akshaya Aqua Farms Vs Designated Committee (Madras High Court) The petitioner challenges order passed by the first respondent, the Designated Committee rejecting its application under the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme. The order is a one liner, which simply says ‘Dear Taxpayer, your SVLDRS Form for the ARN No LD1112190001929 has been rejected.’ No […]
Ideal Surgicals Vs National Company Law Tribunal (Kerala High Court) The challenge in these original petitions is against the proceedings of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kochi Bench. IBC, 2016 is a Single Unified Umbrella Code, covering the entire gamut of the law relating to insolvency resolution of corporate persons and others in a time […]
Taxpayer filed the GST return within the time granted by Karnataka High Court and the return filed was a return as contemplated under section 62 (2) which is to be construed to be return filed within the time. If that were to be so, the return filed in terms of the High court order was a return in terms of section 62(2) and the best judgment assessment orders passed under section 62(1) would stand withdrawn.
