Ptitioner has vehemently submitted that in present case compounding application of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that it is not the first offence of petitioner.
Mere allotment of PAN under section 139A of the Act would not make the allottee necessarily a separate entity for the purpose of assessment of tax. The statute recognizes certain eventualities where quite outside the requirement of payment of tax and for filing return of income, the Assessing Officer may allot a PAN to individual.
A change of religion and loss of caste was at one time considered as grounds for forfeiture of property and exclusion of inheritance. However, this has ceased to be the case after the passing of the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850. Section 1 of the Caste Disabilities Removal Act inter alia provides that if any […]
Justices Akil Khureshi and Biren Vaishnav, in a recent ruling, held that section 50C of the Income Tax Act is applicable to a case where even a case where the document evidencing transfer of the capital asset has not been presented for registration
As common question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions and as such in respect of the same assessee, but with respect to different assessment years, all these petitions are disposed of by this common judgment and order.
Section 271AAA imposes an additional condition of the assessee having to substantiate the manner in which, the undisclosed income was derived. This requirement, however, must be seen as consequential to or corollary to the base requirement of specifying the manner, in which, the undisclosed income was derived. It is only when such declaration is made, the question of substantiating such disclosure or claim would arise.
01 The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under Sections 24 and 28 of the Advocates Act, 1961 for the prayers as prayed for inter alia that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued to the Bar Council of India to enroll […]
Brief facts leading to the reference are as under. The respondent assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act. For the assessment year 20032004, the assessee had filed return of income declaring nil income. The Assessing Officer framed the order of assessment on 27.03.2006
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Central, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as CESTAT) dated 18/08/2015 by which the learned CESTAT has dismissed the rectification application on the ground that the said application has been preferred beyond the date of six months from the date of passing the original order, appellant has preferred the present Tax Appeal.
CIT (Appeals) in a detailed judgement, reversed the order of the Assessing Officer holding that if at all the transaction was held to be sham, the additions can be made in the case of the firm and not the partners.
