In this case ICAI has started the Disciplinary proceeding against a CA . It was alleged that he has got published an advertisement in ‘Accountancy Journal’ published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, in United Kingdom to solicit any business
In the present case also, there exist no grounds for re opening the assessment after the expiry of 4 years from the relevant assessment year. The notice under section 148 of the said Act is based on re-appreciation of the same material on record.
It is a settled position in law that for reassessment proceedings beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, it is an essential condition that the income chargeable to tax which has allegedly escaped assessment must be occasioned
The respondent-assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture of health care and surgical items and in the returns filed for Assessment Years 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2009-10 had declared taxable income of Rs.26,25,230/-, Rs.94,90,363/- and Rs.32,18,350/- respectively.
Some of the relevant facts are, the assessee company was incorporated on September 19, 2007 under the Companies Act, 1956, to carry on trading activities which primarily included wholesale trading of all kinds of consumer goods durables, articles and products.
we feel that it would be appropriate if the ACIT reconsiders the application of the petitioner for stay in the light of the observations contained in the said decision [Soul v. DCIT (supra)]. This is so because according to the petitioner the assessment is a high pitched one inasmuch as it is approximately 17 times of the returned income.
that the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police, on the complaint of the complainant company had found that Sh. Sanjay Daksha, Sh. Sofi-urrehman, Sh. Binod Rajhans did not figure in the complainant company records before 8th March, 2004
The respondent-assessee had submitted that their total turnover was Rs.4697.23 crores, as against investment in shares of Rs.2.95 crores. In the previous assessment years they were maintaining dual portfolio of investment (capital asset) and stock-in-trade (trading asset).
In the present case, there was no basis for the AO to determine that the true value of the property was Rs. 1.25 crores, by adopting the return on capital method. The AO was under a duty first to ascertain what was according to him the true cost of the property.
On a plain reading of Section 153C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer of the searched person must be “satisfied” that inter alia any document seized or requisitioned “belongs to” a person other than the searched person.
