Notice issued in the name of deceased assessee instead of upon his/her legal representatives was invalid as the legal representative not having waived the requirement of notice under section 148 and not having submitted to the jurisdiction of AO pursuant to the impugned notice, therefore, the provisions of section 292B would not be attracted and hence, the notice had to be treated as invalid.
By crediting enhanced value of land, which belonged to assessee-firm to current account of partners of firm and by treating it as loan from the partners in account of company, there was violation of provisions contained in clauses (a) and (c) of proviso to section 47(xiii). Therefore, the said transaction would amount to transfer of capital asset within the purview of section 45 and thus, the profits or gains obtained by transfer of asset by firm to company would be treated as capital gains.
The notice under section 148 of the Act, which is a jurisdictional notice, has been issued to a dead person. Upon receipt of such notice, the legal representative has raised an objection to the validity of such notice and has not complied with the same.
While praying for stay of demand raised pursuant to the order under Section 143(3) of the Act, the writ-applicant contended that the case was one of high pitched assessment. The writ-applicant also pointed out his poor financial condition. The writ-applicant submitted before the Income Tax Officer that even the deposit of 20% of the total amount was beyond his financial capacity.
Revision under section 263 was invalid in case order of assessment merged with the order of Appellate CIT in its entirety as CIT did not have jurisdiction to revise such order of assessment in view of clause (c) of Expln. 1 to sub-section (1) of section 263.
Once the prior period income was held to be taxable, the prior period expenditure also should be allowed to be set off and assessee was not obliged in law to indicate any direct or indirect nexus between the prior period income and prior period expenditure.
AAP And Co. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) The writ-application has been filed seeking quashing and setting aside of the press release dated 18th October 2018 to the extent that its para 3 purports to clarify that the last date for availing the input tax credit relating to the invoices issued during the […]
Mere amendments in the Act would not override the provisions of Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). It was held that: on a final note, India’s change in position to the OECD Commentary cannot be a fact that influences the interpretation of the words defining royalty as they stand today.
High Court held that statement recorded during inquiry/investigation may have been recorded under compulsion and the same cannot be said to be voluntary statement.
Where building/developing project was completed within the time framed provided under section 80-IB(10) and an application for issuance of completion certificate was filed within time, then delay on account of the competent authority in issuing completion certificate would not deprive the assessee, the benefit of section 80-IB(10).
