Brahm Datt Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) CONCLUSION – Re-assessment not tenable in law in as much as the same is barred by limitation. Any subsequent amendment in the re-assessment provisions, if not specifically mentioned, are presumed to be prospective and hence not applicable in the present case. FACTS – Petitioner, a senior citizen, was […]
When AO finds the accounts of the assessee to be complex and in order to protect the interest of the revenue, it is justifiable to direct for special audit.
Refund claim of Vodafone’s worth Rs. 4759.74 Crores was rightly rejected as Revenue had the right to adjust the substantial outstanding demands against the refunds that arose but had not yet been determined due to ongoing scrutiny proceedings.
Income on sale of prepaid cards to the extent of unutilized talk time did not accrue as income in the year of sale. If assessee had failed to perform the services as promised, it would be liable and under an obligation to refund the advance payment received under the ordinary law of contract or special enactments, like the Consumer Protection Act.
Addition made under section 68 consequent to notice issued under section 153C was deleted because the AO had initiated assessment proceedings under section 153C for the relevant assessment years without pointing out or referring to any seized document belonging to those years and, therefore, there was no prima facierationale or logic behind issuing the said notice.
In terms of the provisions of section 245H of the Act, no immunity from penalty and prosecution can be granted by the ITSC since the complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under section 276 CC of the Act, was instituted before the receipt of the application under section 245C.
Amended 80A (5) could not be read as a stipulation barring and restricting the assessee from revising the computation/claim for deduction made in accordance with Section 80A (5).
Addition made by AO was justified with regard to introduction of bogus share capital in the form of accommodation entries as the transactions done were clearly sham with excellent paper work to camouflage their bogus nature.
Ms Napin Impex Private Ltd. Vs Commissioner Of DGST (Delhi High Court) The brief facts are that the petitioner is a registered dealer, which trades inter alia in PVC raisins and other food items such as beverages. The petitioner alleges that its premises were visited by the Revenue authorities on 29.08.2018 when the DGST officials directed […]
Rajesh Jindal Vs Commissioner of Central Tax GST Delhi (West) (Delhi High Court) Counsel for the respondent says that statements have been recorded inter alia of one Sh. Deepak Taneja and Sh. Ravinder Tyagi, both of whom have stated, giving specifics, that the petitioner has threatened them since they were made dummy directors by the […]
