Tribunal was justified in assessing the correctness of the notice for reopening the assessment under Section 148 on the basis of the reasons which were disclosed by the Assessing Officer. Those reasons, as the Tribunal noted, could not give rise to a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for the simple reason that in the computation of income, the assessee had adopted the circle rate which is higher than the sale consideration. Hence, the appeal will not give rise to any substantial question of law.
In the present case, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee had invested a certain amount of its funds in shares and that the dividend which has been received or receivable did not form part of the total income.
Sub-section (1) of Section 151 provides inter alia that where an assessment has been made under section 143(3), a notice under section 148 cannot be issued by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner unless the Joint Commissioner
Yesterday i.e. on 25.8.2014, due to non-functioning of the ACs installed in Court No.24, atmosphere of the Court was so humid and warm that learned Advocates including Senior Advocates, namely, Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, Mohd. Arif Khan, Dr. L.P.Mishra, made complain in this context to the Court.
Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of M/s Vinay Wire and Poly Product Private Limited Vs. DGCEx [Writ Tax No. 283 of 2014] wherein the appellant has challenged the order of Hon’ble Settlement Commission passed u/s 32E of CEA, 1944.
In the present case, the submission of the assessee before the Tribunal, as recorded in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, is that the only reason which was given by the Assessing Officer for initiating reassessment proceedings was that the property was sold by the assessee for Rs.31 lacs
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.
Once the Assessing Officer is satisfied that a permanent establishment of the petitioner exists in India and business is being conducted from this permanent establishment, the attribution of profits is a necessary consequence.
Allahabad High Court in the case of Tax Lawyers Association Lko. Vs. State Of U.P. as a Interim Measure held that no person whosoever, may be permitted to advertise in the Newspaper or any leaflet, inviting assesses for the purpose of filing of return or arguing before the authority under the VAT Act. Any person, who is not a registered advocate, shall not be permitted to appear before the Authority under the VAT Act.
