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
3. At the threshold on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel submits that the concept of ownership considering the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act read with Registration Act is different in the context of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. What is to be considered for the purpose of Income Tax Act are the provisions of section.
Where despite the goods having been cleared on payment of customs duty as assessed under Heading 85.44 (which was supported by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) the DRI searched the premises of the assessee and threatened that unless the differential duty payable under Heading 90.01 was paid, the directors and employees of the assessee would be arrested and the consignments confiscated HELD passing severe strictures that:
9. In the instant case, since it is not in dispute that the amount, in question, has already been utilized by the Assessee for the purpose of its business from time to time and by Board Resolution the Assessee has transferred the amount to the Reserve Fund Account, and considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. T. V. Sundaram Iyengar
9. Having considered the contentions, in our opinion, the instructions cannot be interpreted as a Statute though it is pursuant to the power conferred under Section 268-A of the Income Tax Act. What the Court has to consider is the plain language of the paragraph and the object behind the said provisions. The object appears to be not to burden courts and Tribunals in respect of matters
