Power to provisionally attach bank accounts is a drastic power. Only upon contingencies provided therein that the power under section 83 can be exercised. It is therefore not possible to accept the submission of the Respondents that even though specified proceedings have been launched against one taxable person, bank account of another taxable person can be provisionally attached merely based on the summons issued under section 70 to him.
Stock Exchange Bombay Vs Varughese P. Danial (Bombay High Court) So far as the prohibitory orders were issued by the Income Tax Department in respect of security deposit of the defaulting card holder is concerned, any amount in excess after meeting it’s liabilities should be handed over to the Income Tax Department. This is so […]
Bombay High Court has held that sale made by transfer of documents while goods are in bonded warehouse would not qualify as exempt under Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, relating to high sea sales. Observing that concept of crossing the customs frontiers of India is distinct from customs barriers of India, the High Court termed such sale as local sale.
Power to provisionally attach bank accounts is a drastic power. Considering the consequences that ensue from provisional attachment of bank accounts, the Courts have repeatedly emphasized that this power is not to be routinely exercised. Under Section 83, the legislature has no doubt conferred power on the authorities to provisionally attach bank accounts to safeguard government revenue, but the same is within well-defined ambit. Only upon contingencies provided therein that the power under section 83 can be exercised. This power is to be used in only limited circumstances and it is not an omnibus power.
CIT Vs Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (Bombay High Court) In the instant case Tribunal discussed the objects of the assessee i.e.,the respondent and returned a finding of fact that the entire objects are charitable in nature having regard to the meaning of the expression “Charitable purpose” as defined in the Act. Tribunal referred to […]
Even if the purchases made from the parties in question are to be treated as bogus, it does not necessarily mean that entire amount should be disallowed and that no benefit should be given to the Respondent-Assessee.
Usha Exports Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) The first contention raised by Dr. Shivram regarding the absence of statement regarding petitioner’s failure in the reasons is correct. The reasons supplied along with the impugned notice, which are reproduced above, contain no assertion there was any failure of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all […]
When resulting company had not received notice of reopening of assessment of amalgamating company, then, order of assessment that came to be passed pursuant to the notice of reopening of assessment, was not against the resulting company, thus, notice of recovery was set aside and attachment of the resulting company’s bank accounts was lifted.
In our view, these circumstance, if considered in conjunction with total absence of ill motive, mala fide intent or animus to cause wrongful gain to the importers and the petitioner, lead to a legitimate inference that the act on the part of the petitioner was the result of negligence and carelessness. It falls short of misconduct.
Court held that where the Act provides for sanction by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax in terms of section 151, then the sanction by the Commissioner of Income Tax would not meet the requirement of the Act and the reopening notice will be without jurisdiction.
