As the search warrant was issued in the joint names of the assessee and her spouse, it means that the officer had reason to believe that the undisclosed assets and income were held jointly. If so, it is not open for the AO to assess the assessee individually on the basis of the assets and documents seized during the course of search in pursuance to the said warrant but the assessment ought to have been only in the capacity of AOP or BOI.
All these appeals have been preferred under Section 260A (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ”Act 1961′) by the Revenue as well as by the Assessee. It provides for filing of an appeal in the form of a memorandum of appeal within 120 days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the Assessee or the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner. It is an admitted position that all these appeals have been preferred beyond the period of limitation as provided under the aforesaid Section and the appellants have filed applications for extensi
In respect of AY 2000-01, the assessee filed a ROI. In the accompanying balance sheet it was disclosed that prior period expenditure of Rs. 5,41,850 was debited to the P&L A/c and that interest of Rs. 8,34,720 receivable from a particular party had not been accounted for as income. The AO passed an order u/s 143(3) in which he did not make any addition on account
S. 260A permits the filing of an appeal to the High Court within 120 days. In CIT vs. Velingkar Brothers 289 ITR 382 (Bom) (FB), The Full Bench held that the Court had power to condone delay u/s 260A. However, in Hongo India 236 E.L.T. 417 and Chaudharana Steels 238 E.L.T. 705, the Supreme Court held in the context of sections 35H & 35G
Section 271B, read with section 44AB, of the Income-tax, 1961 – Penalty – For failure to get accounts audited – Assessment years 1987-88 to 1989-90 – Whether section 271B is not attracted in a case where no account has been maintained and instead recourse under section 271A can be taken – Held, yes
Depending on the facts, nursery income may or may not be agricultural income. We are giving here two HC judgements that will help you. You can always file a return for AY 07-08 claiming nursery income as agriculture income(if facts permit so) and this would not be concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in fact the respondents had no Jurisdiction to seize the trucks and he has claimed damages. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is correct. It has been repeatedly held by several Division Benches of this Court that trucks cannot be seized under the U. P. Trade-tax Act e.g., in the case of M/s. D. B. Timber Merchant, Ballia v. Commissioner of Sales-tax and another, 1992 UPTC 18, M/s. M. S. Freight Carriers and another v. Sales Tax Officer, Check Post, Ghaziabad, 1992 UPTC 273, M/s. Freight Carriers of India, Calcutta v. Deputy Commissioner (Executive), Sales Tax, Ghaziabad and others, 1992 UPTC 604, etc.
As per the CBDT Circular discussed in the case of Smt. Pati Devi vs. ITO; 240 ITR 727 Karnatka 500gm, jewellery is expected in the possession of a married lady and that much of ornaments cannot be seized. If we go with the CBDT Circular dated 11.05.1994 and the ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Pati Devi (supra), then each lady is expected to own 500gm. ornaments.
It is evident from a reading of these two clauses that clause (iii) which permitted any amount paid by way of interest on a mortgage or other capital charge was deleted and clause (iv) was amended in such a manner as to make only that annual charge which is not voluntary or which does not amount to a capital charge alone deductible.
Badrinath Agarwal v. CIT (Allahabad High Court) 65 ITR 242 (All. ) In estimating the income the conditions of trade obtaining and the average margin of profit in the particular line of business are to be borne in mind. It is clear that these factors in the present case have been kept in view and, therefore, it is not possible to say that the estimate of income was arbitrary or capricious to justify holding that some error of law had been committed by the Tribunal in confirming the flat rate of 5% applied by the departmental authorities
