Tripura High Court set aside impugned order and remanded back to the Respondents for passing the order after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Assessing Officer cannot pass an order on the basis of pure suspicion and surmised without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing the case which is sought to be made out in assessment order
Assessee has every right to know reasons for passing a demand order against him, said High Court of Tripura by setting aside impugned non-speaking demand order.
Penalty leviable u/s.271AAA was 10% of the concealed income whereas under section 271(1)(c), the penalty was leviable at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, therefore, the claim of AO that show cause notice had been issued under both under section 271AAA and section 271(1)(c) was not correct and it was not a typographical error.
Keenara Industries Private Limited Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) In the case of Keenara Industries Private Limited Vs ITO and other 256 cases Gujarat High Court set aside Notices under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and impugned orders under section 148A(d) on the ground of limitation. FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH […]
PCIT Vs Durgapur Projects Limited (Calcutta High Court) Whether provisions of Section 50C can be applied when the immovable property is compulsorily acquired by the Government? Whether the definition of transfer u/s 2(47) can be considered for applying Section 50C or only when the transfer involves payment of stamp duty that the provisions of Section […]
HC held that, the purpose of a SCN is to enable the noticee to meet the allegations, on the basis of which an adverse action is proposed. Further, the procedure adopted by the Revenue Department is flawed and the order for cancellation of GST Registration of the assessee was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
Section 54F exemption would be granted to assessee on its residential properties and assessee cannot be said to have not ‘Purchased’ properties for not having sale deed executed in its favour.
Bombay High Court held that initiation of reassessment proceeding under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, in absence of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material facts fully and truly during the regular assessment proceedings, is mere change of opinion and hence liable to be quashed.
CESTAT Bangalore held that as service actually falls under works contract service, then mere registration under construction of a new residential complex and payment of service tax thereon, wouldnt hold that services was rendered under construction of a new residential complex.
