When resulting company had not received notice of reopening of assessment of amalgamating company, then, order of assessment that came to be passed pursuant to the notice of reopening of assessment, was not against the resulting company, thus, notice of recovery was set aside and attachment of the resulting company’s bank accounts was lifted.
In our view, these circumstance, if considered in conjunction with total absence of ill motive, mala fide intent or animus to cause wrongful gain to the importers and the petitioner, lead to a legitimate inference that the act on the part of the petitioner was the result of negligence and carelessness. It falls short of misconduct.
Court held that where the Act provides for sanction by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax in terms of section 151, then the sanction by the Commissioner of Income Tax would not meet the requirement of the Act and the reopening notice will be without jurisdiction.
Madhuri Doulatram Choitram Vs Lachmandas Tulsiram Nayar (HUF) (Bombay High Court) It is one thing to say that a member of the family other than, or in the absence of, a Karta, may be permitted to prosecute the suit on account of special circumstances of a given case. And a completely different thing to claim […]
Bombay HC held that in case, the deductor has failed to upheld the correct details in form 26AS the benefit should be given to the assesssee on the basis of evidence produced before the Department.
Braganza Construction (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) The issue under consideration is that Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in holding that the said amount of Rs.80 lakhs is deemed to be unexplained expenditure under proviso, to section 69C, of the IT Act, without […]
PCIT Vs Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Notice which is issued to the assessee must indicate whether the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the case of the assessee involves concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or both, with clarity. If the notice is issued […]
Refund applications could not be denied merely because the assessment orders were not challenged by assessee or reassessment of the bill of entries was not done
The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal of registration of their appeals filed under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act since they have not deposited the ten per cent of the disputed amount now mandated under the amended provision of Section 26 of the Act. They have challenged the validity of the amended provisions and the legislative competence of the State.
In the present case the Chief Commissioner of Income tax is not the officer specified in section 151 of the Act. There is thus a breach of requirement of section 151(2) of the Act regarding sanction for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. Consequently, the impugned notice and the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The Petitioner, therefore, is entitled to succeed.
