Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench dated 28th August 2017, raising the following question for our consideration
Principal CIT Vs Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (Gujarat High Court) It is well settled that even in case where the original assessment is made without scrutiny, the requirement of the Assessing Officer forming the belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, would apply. Reference in this respect can be made of the judgment in […]
Nila Infrastructure Limited vs. Surat Municipal Corporation (Gujarat High court) Non-payment of GST along with the bid fee to procure a tender would amount to non-compliance with the remittance of bid fee – bidder would be liable for disqualification- Gujarat High court FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT / ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS: 1.0. […]
What subsection (1) of Section 54 of the Act requires is that the assessee, after the date of transfer, purchases or within three years after such date, constructs a residential unit, only then the benefit of deduction would be granted. This provision, therefore, provides that construction of the residential unit should be done after the date of transfer but, within three years from such date.
This group of writ petitions arise in similar background. We may record facts from Special Civil Application No. 12765 of 2017 and 12764 of 2017. Petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 12765 of 2017 is a partner of one M/s. Hitech Analytical Services and she would hereafter to be referred to as ‘a partner of the said firm.
Section 41(1) of the Act in plain terms provides for adding back of an allowance or deduction which has been made by the assessee in any year in respect of loss expenditure or trading liability and subsequently during any previous year such liability ceases. The primary requirement of applicability of this provision therefore is where an allowance or reduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of such loss or expenditure or trading liability. When no such allowance or deduction was made, question of applicability of section 41(1) of the Act would not arise.
These Tax Appeals involved two assessees but the facts being closely similar, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had dealt with the departments appeals by a common judgment, which is impugned in these Tax Appeals
The assessee’s connection is not correct as the information available with this office that the assessee trust has deposited cash of Rs. 33,97,775/- in the Bank Account. Further, if at all any cash transaction has been done that issue will be examined at the time of re-assessment proceedings. A.O. made satisfaction and recorded reason that I have reason to believe that cash deposited in bank by the trust, ought to have brought to has escaped the assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act.
(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 23,04,369 by considering the same to be service tax? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 53,600 made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
In the present case, we have noted that in case of Karta of HUF in his individual capacity under identical circumstances, application for condonation of delay based on identical grounds came to be accepted by the Revenue. In same set of facts and same situation, there cannot be a differential treatment. Merely because one application was decided by the Commissioner and another by the Chief Commissioner cannot be a point of distinction.
