Bombay High Court held that issue of reopening of assessment has to be tested only on the basis of the reasons recorded, which reasons can neither be improved upon nor substituted by an affidavit or oral submissions.
Bombay High Court held that provisions of section 21 of the Chartered Accountant Act 1949 duly complied and respondent found guilty. Accordingly held that order of reprimand of the respondent will serve th e ends of justice.
Notice Issued on Secondary E-Mail Id Despite Having Primary E-Mail Id and Email Id Mentioned in the Last Filed ITR is Liable to be Quashed- Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court held that declarant making voluntary disclosure for availing benefit of SVLDR Scheme is ineligible for applying under the scheme if it was subjected to audit as on 30th June 2019.
Petitioner submitted that it is not in dispute that the Petitioner falls in the category of case under Section 125(1)(f)(i) of Finance Act as on 30 June 2019, there was no enquiry/investigation pending against the Petitioner and at the most the same could be as initiated by way of notice dated 28 August 2019 by the Deputy Commissioner (Anti Evasion) CGST, Belapur.
If there is no valid service of notice under section 148, the reassessment proceedings are null and void. service of notice under section 148 is a condition precedent for making reassessment or re-computation under section 147 of the Act.
Bombay High Court directed customs department to come up with the solution to allow online amendment of shipping bill. So that transmitted amended shipping bill can be duly processed by DGFT.
It has been admitted that income of Rs.4,57,18,304/- and tax determined thereupon at Rs.87,48,804/-was due to a system error which was in process of being rectified. It is also stated that the Faceless Assessing Officer in fact has assessed income at Rs.1,920/-
HC set aside Section 148 notice, order of assessment and consequential demand and penalty notice, as same was issued in the name of a non-existent company, on account of its amalgamation.
Bombay High Court held that once SVLDRS-2 issued and follow up action taken by the department, authorities cannot renege on the same when rejection of SVLDRS-1 not communicated to the applicant.
