Since AO had purported to assume the jurisdiction for reopening of assessment, without having first disposed of assessees objections to the reasons by passing a speaking order, therefore, failure to follow the procedure renders the assumption of jurisdiction by AO ultra vires in law.
Whether the AO is correct in disallowing expenses incurred on developing and maintaining land in connection with real estate activity?
Where out of 14 persons, 13 persons have duly confirmed the booking advances made to assessee and their creditworthiness was also examined by AO but no negative inference was drawn by him, no addition could be made under section 68 just because one person who had only advanced an meager amount, had not recorded the statement under oath as he was abroad. Consequently, penalty under section 271(1)(c) would also not be levied.
Trushar Parimal Shah Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) The addition in the present case was made under section 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenses. Indeed, the primary onus lies on the assessee to justify the expenses claimed by him. However from the preceding discussion, we note that the assessee has discharged his onus […]
Assessee not having routed service tax amount through profit and loss account, there was no question of making disallowance under section 43B on account of delayed payment of service-tax.
The total number of representations or petitions or communications, by whatever name called, received by the Government of India, till date, from donors regarding the need for maintaining confidentiality of their identity while making donations to political parties;
If the commercial use is by the purchaser himself for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchaser of goods is yet a ‘consumer’
Assessee is not expected to prove the genuineness of the cash deposited in the bank accounts of those creditors because under law the assessee can be asked to prove the source of the credits in its books of account but not the source of the source
Order of attachment of bank account is prima facie without authority of law, as discussed hereinabove, and the order of blocking of credit is not backed by any statutory provision, the respondents are directed to forthwith withdraw the attachment of the bank account of the petitioner with the IDBI Bank, Prahladnagar Branch bearing Current Account No. 1024102000009874 and to unblock the credit of Rs.6,63,51,380/- available in the electronic credit ledger forthwith.
Himani Munjal Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in Criminal Complaint No. 35/2018 pending before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (Economic Offences) Jaipur Mahanagar, for offences under Sections 132(1)(b),(c)(d),(f),(i) and (1) of Central Goods and Services Tax […]
