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.
Revenue is not entitled to attach the properties belonging to a Private Trust to recover dues of the trustees, who was a director of a company which had allegedly defaulted in paying its tax dues.
Time limit stipulated under Rule 117 of the Rules is not ultra vires of the Act. This Rule is traceable to the power conferred under section 164(2) of the Act. The time limit stipulated in Rule 117 is in consonance with the transitional nature of the enactment, and it is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.
Assessing Officer comes to a conclusion that the assessee had failed to collect the STT or had failed to pay such STT to the credit of the Central Government, it would not ipso-facto lead to imposition of penalty. Once such a conclusion is reached, the assessee is required to be provided reasonable opportunity of hearing and during the hearing if the assessee can prove that there was reasonable cause for such failure, no penalty shall be imposed.
In the instant case, HC notice that not only was there no mistake apparent from the record but in the garb of the Misc. Application, petitioner had sought for review of the final order passed by the Tribunal and for rehearing of the appeal which is not permissible in law. In our view, Writ Petition does not appear to be bonafide.
Considering the wide phraseology employed, it is obvious that the business of the appellant assessee includes buying and selling even agricultural properties. Therefore, the findings recorded by the AO and the ITAT that the income derived by the Assessee on purchase and sale of the agricultural land will be assessed as income from business, were sustained.
The assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. The fact that the source of the source is suspect and that the creditor had no regular source of income to justify the advancement of the credit to the assessee does not mean that an addition can be made in the hands of the assessee
