This is yet another case in the ever increasing number of cases filed before this Court challenging the issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
S. 68: Statements recorded u/s 132 (4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. A copy of the statement together with the opportunity to cross-examine the deponent has to provided to the assessee. If the statement is retracted and/or if cross-examination is not provided, the statement has to be discarded. The onus of ensuring the presence of the deponent cannot be shifted to the assessees. The onus is on the Revenue to ensure his presence
Henceforth the lawyers and litigants-in-person shall also be provided with the details of defects of their filed cases via e-mail in addition to the SMS alert already being received about the defects.
Proceedings under Section 148 of the Act which commenced with the notice dated 3rd April, 2012 issued to VBPPL were itself void ab initio for the simple reason that on that day VBPPL was not in existence as a result of the order dated 20th February, 2013 of the High Court approving its amalgamation with the Petitioner with effect from 1st April, 2012. The question of revival of such proceedings at a later point in time, with there being no change to the legal position regarding VBPPL having ceased to exist, does not arise.
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 […]
The ITAT noted that document was silent as to payer and payee of amount in question nor does it disclose that payment was made by cheque or cash nor it is proved that document is in handwriting of assessee or at least bears his signatures.
In the present case there was no illegality committed by the Department in not issuing to the Assessee a notice under Section 226 (3) (iii) of the Act simultaneously with or prior to the notice issued to its bank under Section 226 (3) (i) of the Act for recovery of the tax demand from its account.
An addition cannot be made on the basis of a handwritten loose paper which does not indicate if it pertains to the assessee and if AO has not brought on record any forensic evidence to prove the handwriting of the assessee. An addition cannot be made on the basis of suspicion and guesswork and without bringing corroborative material on record
The Court is not prepared to accept the plea of the Revenue that merely because a panchnama was drawn up on 15thMay, 2007 showing that the search was ‘finally concluded’ on that date, it postponed the period of limitation in terms of Section 153B (2) (a) of the Act.
Extract of Reply Submitted by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in Delhi High Court in which he stated that he never asked senior advocate Mr. Ram Jethmalani to pose objectionable questions to Mr. Arun Jaitley or use objectionable words while recording of evidence in the Rs. 10-crore defamation suit initiated by Mr. Arun Jaitley.
