It was argued that govt does not have any jurisdiction to enter into an inquiry in respect of the subject matter of the notice and as such the impugned notice was wholly without jurisdiction.
M/s. Kumar Traders And Company & Anr. Vs. State Of Assam (Gauhati High Court) This case was adjourned on 9.8.2017, to enable the learned Govt. Advocate to receive instruction on the circumstances under, which the team from the Bureau of Investigation for Economic Offences (BIEO) had raided the Amingaon godown of the petitioners, where areca […]
Gotanagar Truck Terminus is a plant and not building, for the purpose of claiming depreciation under Section 32 read with Section 43 of the IT Act. Consequently the assessee is held entitled to depreciation at the rate of 25% as prescribed for plant and not at 10%, as applicable for building.
The case of the assessee is that they did not charge interest on that advance and in consideration of the same the assessee got the premises it a very low rent of rupees two per sq feet in a prime locality of Calcutta.
It would not be possible to proceed to recover the amount of tax from the assessee. The assessee cannot be doubly saddled with the tax liability. Deduction of tax at source is only one of the modes. Once this mode is adopted and by virtue of the statutory provisions the person responsible
(i) Whether Central Bureau of Investigation, popularly called CBI, is a constitutionally valid police force empowered to investigate crimes? (ii) Could a police force, empowered to investigate crimes, have been created and constituted by a mere Resolution of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, in purported exercise of its executive powers?
Since the present case did not suffer from non-disclosure or omission to disclose ‘fully and truly’ the facts by the assessee, the Assessing Officer could not have been held, and was rightly not held by the learned Tribunal, to have had the jurisdiction to re-open the assessment and make assessment as in the present case.In the present case all the material facts, which were necessary for making a correct assessment, had been furnished, in the case at hand, to the Assessing Officer and when the Assessing Officer had failed to make correct assessment, the Revenue cannot blame the assessee and take recourse to the proviso to Section 147 for the purpose of re-opening the assessment.
In the instant case, assessee a recognized trust invested its funds as per instructions of Government of India in various financial institutions and those institutions deducted tax at source from interest earned on fixed deposits. In order to claim refund of TDS erroneously deducted by the financial institutions, the assessee filed returns for relevant assessment years. The AO held that since said returns had been filed beyond the prescribed time-limit, they were to be treated as invalid returns and, thus, application for the TDS refunds was to be rejected. The CIT, however, refused to condone the delay in filing the returns on the ground that it was not a case of genuine hardship as envisaged under section 119(2)(b). Contending that the stance taken by the respondent authorities is contrary to law, the petitioner-trust filed this instant writ petition for appropriate relief.
The petitioner trust, in this case, is also being deprived of a sum of Rs. 8,93,773 for which it cannot be blamed at all : it had no liability whatsoever to pay this amount to the Revenue. Yet, the Revenue has refused to refund the same by taking some hypertechnical view of the matter. If the petitioner-trust is being deprived of a sum of Rs. 8,93,773 which legitimately belongs to it due to perverse view taken by the Revenue, is it still rational to say that no genuine hardship is being caused to it ?
Considering the year during which the amount by way of interest from the trade debtor had been received by the assessee and has been treated as business income, it has to be held as derived from its undertaking, thus making it eligible for deduction under section 80-IC of the Act.
