It cannot be a universal rule that once an appeal from the order of the Tribunal has been admitted in the quantum proceedings by High Court, then, ipso facto the issue is a debatable issue warranting deletion of penalty by the Tribunal.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that the impugned order dated 28th July, 2017 to the extent it allows the Revenue’s application for rectification, is without jurisdiction. This is so as it amounts to review of its order dated 6th June, 2016 which had been passed in an appeal for Assessment Year 2004 05 after due consideration of the very issue. In any case, the issue raised is a debatable issue. Therefore, outside the scope of rectification under Section 254(2) of the Act.
These appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common Judgment as the issue which arises in these appeals is more or less same. So far as CEXA No.89 of 2008 is concerned, it takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 22nd August 2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai (for short the Appellate Tribunal)
This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges an order dated 2nd December, 2016 passed by the Settlement Commission (Commission) under Section 245 D(6B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) While mere making of provision for bad debts will not by itself (on application of amended law) entitle the party to deduction, yet it would be a matter where the assessee should be given an opportunity to establish its claim. This by producing its evidence of […]
Allowance of bad debt depends on how it is reflected in accounts
In this flash editorial author discusses the provisions of liability of directors after strike off of Company or winding up of Company by tribunal after Struck off in the record of Registrar of Companies.
Certain Advocates have forgotten the code of eithcs. They facilitate the unethical misadventures of their clients, encouraging their clients dishonest practices, causing grave stress to the Judiciary, and bringing the entire judicial system to disrepute.
ITAT held that fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis as to how a share worth Rs. 5 of a little known company would jump from Rs. 5 to Rs. 485. AO was justified in denying exemption under section 10(38) to assessee, being fantastic sale price was not at all possible in such a short time.
Revenue was not justified in issuing the impugned attachment notices under section 226(3), since they had already recovered more than 15 per cent of the disputed demand in view of the Office Memorandum issued by CBDT.
