The I-T department has lost the opportunity to recover revenues running into thousands of crores after failing to file its appeals before the Bombay High Court within the stipulated period of 120 days. The Bombay High Court has dismissed about 400 appeals recently. Section 260 A of the Income-Tax Act stipulates that an appeal against the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
6. Section 132(1) (b) & (c) of the Act to the extent relevant to the present case reads thus:- 132. (1) Where the [Director General or Director] or the [Chief Commissioner or Commissioner] [or any such (Joint Director) or (Joint Commissioner) as may be empowered in this behalf by the Board], in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that-(a) any person to whom a summons under sub-section
Search & seizure action u/s 132 was undertaken at the assessee’s premises. Thereafter an order of provisional attachment u/s 281B was passed. The assessee filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the search and the provisional attachment. HELD dismissing the Petition: (1) Search action u/s 132 can be initiated only if the designated authority forms a reasonable belief
19. It is true that attaching the properties of an assessee even before the crystlisation of the demand is a drastic step and has to be exercised only in extreme circumstances. Whether extreme circumstances existed in the present case so as to levy provisional attachment under section 281B of the Act is the question. 20. In the present case, the incriminating documents seized during the course of search and seizure
In October 2007, Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against two partners of M/s Pricewaterhouse (PWC) for alleged professional and other misconduct in conducting the statutory audit of Global Trust Bank. The proceedings were based on the findings in the Special Audit report and the Annual Financial Inspection of the RBI. Though several hearings were conducted by the Disciplinary Committee,
Citing the Supreme Court order in the Vodafone case, the Bombay High Court today dismissed the SABMiller writ petition against a showcause notice issued by the Income Tax Department. CNBC-TV18’s Ashwin Mohan reports on how this matter is similar to the Vodafone case? This case is similar to the Vodafone tax tussle. The Income Tax Department order on Vodafone is still pending.
No appeal lies against the order rejecting an application for renewal of CHA Licence. In absence of any other remedy it is open to this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in case where an application for renewal is rejected.
10. Section 147 of the Act empowers the assessing officer to reopen the assessment in respect of any assessment year, if he has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The object of reassessment is to assess the correct income. Under section 147 of the Act, the assessing officer can assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment only if there exists tangible material
10. Section 147 of the Act empowers the assessing officer to reopen the assessment in respect of any assessment year, if he has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The object of reassessment is to assess the correct income. Under section 147 of the Act, the assessing officer can assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment only if there exists tangible material
7. It is the first contention of the appellant that the amount in issue is not an income within the definition of the term `income’ set out in section 2(24) of the said Act. We are unable to accept this contention of the appellant and we agree with the findings rendered in this regard by all the lower authorities, including the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by its impugned order dated 26th July, 2006
