Whether sales tax attracted merely because the flats were booked by prospective buyers while the same were under construction? Whether K. Raheja and Larsen & Toubro & Ors. judgments universally applicable without regard to the facts and circumstances of the case?
Penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) not leviable where there is complete absence of recording of any finding that assessee had indulged in any concealment of any material particulars or that explanation offered by him was not bonafide or was false
The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner provides labour in the construction of buildings to various builders under a works contract. It is alleged that under the agreement the petitioner is liable to pay service tax w.e.f. 01.07.2012.
Assessee cannot insist upon cross-examination of all the informers, especially the ones whose statement may not be relied upon by the Department for maintaining the demand- Kurele Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India Thru. Sec. And 2 Others [2015 (12) TMI 1206 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]
The learned Additional Solicitor General has stated that the matter of allotment of residential accommodation to members of the ITAT shall be dealt with fairly and on a priority basis. We are of the view that the same principle should be followed for the future so as to obviate writ petitions being
In the case of M/s Kunj Power Project Pvt. Ltd. v/s Union Of India, it was held that the attachment of property and bank accounts can only be done by the revenue authorities after giving proper notice to the assessee and reasonable opportunity of being heard. The attachments needs to be only after following the prescribed procedures provided in the rules.
In a landmark judgement of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT- V. Smt. Dimpal Yadav, it was held that where even through assesee had taken a loan in cash, since loan was routed through bank account of the assessee for the payment to Government for converting land into free
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT V/s M/S Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd in Income Tax Appeal No. 1 of 2015 has held that a mere non discussion or non mention in assessment order would not justify section 263 to be applied.
In the instant case, it is not disputed that the petitioner society is running an educational institution. Merely because there are other objects of the society does not mean that the educational institution is not existing solely for educational purpose.
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.
