Assessment Order is without jurisdiction as the law laid down by the Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts (supra) has not been followed, then there is no reason to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer to pass a further/fresh order. If this is permitted, it would give a licence to the Assessing Officer to pass […]
The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the tax effect involved in the present appeal is less than Rs.20 lakhs and as per the CBDT Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10th December, 2015, the department has taken a policy decision not to prosecute the appeals wherein the tax effect is less than Rs.20 lakhs.
The Tribunal considered the merits and once again, at great length. The particular argument revolving around the statement of Dilip Dherai and his answer to question No. 24 was also considered in paragraph 21 of the impugned order. Then, in paragraph 22, the Tribunal refers to the additions made under Section 69C.
This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) challenges the order date 23.4.2002 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur (Tribunal) relating to Assessment Year 1995- 96.
The balance sheet and profit and loss account of these persons discloses that these persons had sufficient funds in their accounts for investing in the shares of the Assessee. In view of these voluminous documentary evidence, only because those persons had not appeared before the Assessing Officer would not negate the case of the Assessee.
Petitioner cannot urge and/or seek directions to the respondents to postpone the decision to implement GST with effect from 1.7.2017, for simple reason that herein levy and collection of taxes on goods and services has sanction of law.
Section 221 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, prescribes penalty according to its provisions when an assessee is in default or is deemed to be in default in making a payment of tax.
In view of Companies Act, 1956 being a special statute and upon considering the language of section 10-F, in my view it is clear that the Company Court has no power to condone delay beyond the period of 60 days.
The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 129 E of the Indian Customs Act, 1962, that makes pre- deposit mandatory for filing an appeal before the tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) concerned.
In a recent ruling, the division bench of the Bombay High Court held that the assessee cannot claim that the sale of attached property is time-barred under Rule 68B of the Second Schedule, where he has applied to Settlement Commission for extension of time for payment of demand as per Order of Settlement and his application is pending and writes to TRO for putting sale on hold based on such application.
