The Revenue’s argument seems plausible and even logical because the Commissioner or a Chief Commissioner is unarguably ranked higher in authority than a Joint Commissioner. Yet at the same time
In the present case, there is no doubt at all that the assessee cooperated and appeared both in the assessment as well as reassessment proceedings. Therefore, it had deemed notice of the re-assessment proceedings.
In the present instance, the AO apparently had the books and all the relevant information pertaining to the share applicants. CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. 2008 (216) CTR (SC) 195 directs that whilst the initial onus to prove the identity of a third party,
The assessee submitted that with respect to the addition of ₹24.3 crores, both the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT had noticed that the matter with respect to this liability was sub-judice and pending adjudication in the Company Court which since by its interim judgment dated 25.4.2013
Assessee relied upon the assessment order of AY 2008-09 before CIT (A) in which the accounting to assessee was accepted by revenue. CIT (A) took cognizance of that order pertaining to AY 2008-09 and quantified net profit of assessee retail business @ 5%. ITAT also confirmed the order of CIT (A).
It is provided in section 124 (3) that no person shall entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of AO after the expiry of the time allowed by the notice under section 148 for the making of the return or by the notice under the first proviso to section 144 to show cause
Interest accruing or arises to the assessee can be taxed in the hands of the assessee. In this particular case assessee charges a certain amount as finance charge from its borrowers to process the finance further and liability to pay interest accrued later on after the completion of finance.
Whether assessee’s engagement in activities of collection, collation, formatting of data, editing, digital designing etc. can be termed at manufacturing to avail the benefits of section 10B of the Income-tax Act.
It would be incongruous and inappropriate in the context of Section 10B of the Act to hold that the respondent-assessee, an 100% export oriented unit, who had refurbished a mini cement plant in Zambia and established a mini steel mill in Kazakhstan
That once the AO became aware that the property was not owned by the assessee and that he had received the amount on someone else’s behalf, notice could not have been issued under Section 158BD. He urged that this Court should not interfere with the ITAT’s order on this ground alone.
