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.
It is undisputed that the sole basis for detention of the tanker in question and seizure of the bitumen by the Respondent No.4 was the information collected by him from the toll plaza which revealed that last four digit of the registration number of the tanker in question was similar
it is immaterial whether the shares are held by the appellant as stock-in-trade. The dividend income derived from these shares is specifically chargeable under the head Income from other sources. Consequently, it is immaterial whether the appellant is a dealer or a trader and caries on business of purchase and sale of shares.
In Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 476, an advance was given to the said assessee by the sister concern, which held 50% of the share holding in the assessee concern for mordenisation project.
At the time of registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, which is necessary for claiming exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax is not required to look into the activities, where such activities have not or are in the process of its initiation.
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.
