Since assessee had not disclosed any black money or asset in the income tax proceedings going against him rather he had denied the same, therefore, while respondents may proceed pursuant to the impugned notices dated December 20, 2017 to assessee under Section 10(1) of the Black Money Act calling upon them to produce the details sought for in connection with the assessment for the assessment year 2017-18 under the Black Money Act however, no coercive measures might be taken against assessee if the occasion so arose.
Align Components Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) It is clarifed that since the State of Maharashtra has partially lifted the lock down recently in certain industrial areas in the State of Maharashtra, the workers would be expected to report for duties as per the shift schedules subject to adequate protection, from […]
The period of the moratorium during lockdown will not be reckoned by ICICI Bank for the purposes of computation of the 90-day NPA declaration period. Further, if the lockdown extends beyond 31st May 2020, then these days will be deferred accordingly, irrespective of whether the moratorium itself is extended beyond 31st May 2020.
Bombay High Court had upheld the constitutional validity of Section 140(5) of the Companies Act but held that it would not apply to auditors who had resigned and also squashed the prosecution or the criminal complaints filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against the erstwhile auditors of Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Ltd (IL&FS) and its non-bank lending arm for alleged collusion in falsifying books terming it to be ‘ bad in law’.
Pirna Urban Co-Oeprative Credit Society Ltd. Vs ITO (Bombay at Goa High Court) The issue under consideration is the notice issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to the petitioner’s bank i.e. Ratnakar Bank Ltd., requiring the bank to remit an amount of 2,33,42,040/- as dues towards the payment of income tax by the petitioner. […]
Section 194 C of the IT Act deals with deduction of tax at source when it comes to payment to contractors. In the present case, since neither the Assessee nor M/s. Prabhu Construction can be styled as contractors, it is obvious that the provisions of Section 194C of the IT Act were not attracted. Hence Section 194C will not be invoked in this case and therefore consequently provision of sec 40(a)(ia) would also not applicable.
We find it appropriate to continue all interim orders which are operating till today and are not already continued by some other courts / authority including this court and the same shall remain in force till 30.04.2020, subject to liberty to parties to move for vacation of interim orders only in extreme urgent cases.
Since there was a statutory requirement that AO had to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before directing the assessee to get the accounts audited under section 142(2A), therefore, in the absence of pre-decisional hearing, the decision to have special audit was, therefore, invalid and consequentially all the proceedings conducted thereafter stood vitiated.
Pr. CIT Vs Godrej Investment Ltd (Bombay High Court) In this case The view taken by the Tribunal in its order dated 9 July 2018 in both the Assessment Years was on the basis of the record available before it and its understanding/appreciation of the evidence on record for the two Assessment Years. This is […]
This order of ITAT Mumbai, upheld by the Bombay High Court further establishes the principle that for an income to accrue to a person, corresponding liability to pay should also arise to the other party.
