Mere fact that at one point of time, the officer was working with the Commercial Taxes Department, cannot be a reasonable suspicion to disqualify him for appointment.
AO cannot look into source of source, i.e., of third party only, however assessee’s case was different as the party was closely connected with the assessee. Firm as a partner thereof assessee clearly failed to produce the sale deeds of the sale of agricultural land by partner therefore was justified in making addition under section 68.
Mapra Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and others (the Petitioners) were engaged in manufacture and sale of medicines and had been regularly filing returns to the concerned Authorities. The Petitioners were claiming an exemption in respect of free of cost supply of medicines to its dealer under a scheme
Patna High Court held In the case of M/s Overseas Enterprises vs. The Union of India through the CC of Customs that there was absolutely no justification at all either on fact or in law in not giving effect to the order of the provisional release dated 28.03.2013.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner for initiating a proceeding of contempt against the opposite parties for their deliberate and willful non-compliance and violation of order dated 14.11.2011,
CCIT Vs. Rajendra Singh (Patna High Court)- Even assuming that there were temporary breaks in course of interrogation which continued for 42 hours, it is not in dispute that even on the second night of search and survey on 10.9.2010, the interrogations continued till 3 A.M. and the respondent no.3 and his family members were made to remain awake when it was time for sleep.
Deepak Engineering Works and Others v CIT and Others (Patna High Court)- , section 278B, makes it clear that onus lies on the Partners or Directors to prove that they are not responsible for any of the offence committed by a firm / company. First proviso to section 278B(1), quoted above, makes it clear that onus lies on the Partners or Directors to prove that they were not responsible for acts of omission or commission committed by the firm / company. The question as to whether petitioner nos. 2 to 4 were actually involved in this case or not is a question of fact which is to be determined during the trial and onus is on the petitioners to prove that they were not responsible for any act of omission or commission of the firm i.e. petitioner no.1 M/s Deepak Engineering Works. Accordingly, in view of statutory provisions contained in section 278B of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the I.T. Act) first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable.
Explore the judgment in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 620/2009 – Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna vs. H M Media, Patna, regarding abatement of service tax.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In our considered view, the claim of the revenue that notices were sent through Courier and the Courier had served it within a week on the assessee is not sustainable because the revenue has to produce the copy of the acknowledgement in token of service of the notice.
