Jindal Dyechem Industries (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India ((Delhi High Court) It is apparent from these facts that the imports which are the subject matter of the present writ petition were in fact made after the introduction of GST Regime. The petitioner is the beneficiary of an advance license issued on 17.07.2017. At that point […]
Assessee clearly failed to specify as to how she derived undisclosed income and under what head it fell in (rent, capital gains, professional or business income out of money lending source of the income, etc. Unless such facts were mentioned with some specificity, it could not be said that conditions in section 271AAA(2) were satisfied by the assessee.
Third issue highlighted by the petitioner is that Central and State Acts permit rectification of mistakes. However, GSTN portal does not permit rectification of a return already filed. Rectification is to be made in the subsequent return. Nevertheless authorities are issuing notices to the assessees whenever rectification is made, treating rectification as a discrepancy between GSTR1 and GSTR3B. A large number of assessees are facing this problem.
ITA Nos.405/2005 and 406/2005 have been filed by an individual, Arjun Malhotra impugning common order dated 29th January, 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) deciding ITA Nos.1433/Del/2002 and 1434/Del/2002 relating to Assessment Years (AY, for short) 1998-99 and 1999-2000
Counsel for Revenue wishes to bring on record copies of Circular No. 39/13/2018-GST dated 03.04.2018 setting up an IT Grievance Redressal Mechanism in form of a Committee.
Yum! Restaurants Asia Pte. Ltd. Vs. Dy. DIT (Delhi High Court) In the present case, having started off on a wrong note that the original assessment was scrutinized and an order was passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the assessing officer proceeded to put up the note to the DIT as is evident from […]
The Petitioner seeks the quashing of a notice dated 20-3-2015 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act (‘Act’) by the Assistant Commissioner (hereinafter assessing officer AO) and the order dated 1-2-2016 passed by the assessing officer disposing of the objections filed by the Petitioner to the said notice.
It is one of the most time-honoured and cardinal rule of administration of justice that a party (adversary) should be heard by any Court or Tribunal in the manner he has approached the Court/Tribunal and that he should never be preferred or selected over other litigants/adversaries from the long pending queue unless and until, we repeat, unless and until there are strong compelling and justifiable reasons for bestowing a preferential treatment to a party for hearing him on priority and out of turn basis.
One should not consider and reject an explanation as concocted and contrived by applying prudent man’s behaviour test. Principle of preponderance of probability as a test is to be applied and is sufficient to discharge onus.
The AO’s reason for re-opening is that along with the certificate in Form 56F, which was the certificate of the CA, the working sheet of deduction was not enclosed. That was not a requirement of law. What Form 56F has to be accompanied with is specified under the Income Tax Rules itself. The mere fact that the working sheet may not have been enclosed does not amount to a failure by the Assessee to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts. Consequently, the Court is satisfied that the second reason for re-opening is also unsustainable in law.
