Bhupendra Murji Shah Vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) We are not concerned here with the Circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. We are not concerned here also with the power conferred in the Assessing Officer of collection and recovery by coercive means. All that we are worried about is the understanding of this […]
There was no new tangible material evidence brought on record by AO. Assessment was reopened only on the basis of details available on record and wrongly interpreted by AO.
Incorrectly mentioning the number of tax invoices as tax invoice number on E-way Bill- Prima facie, there seems no discrepancy in E-way Bill attracting seizure of goods. Goods directed to be released without insisting for a deposit of any amount and furnishing security as GST already paid on goods.
Since the bank account in which assessee made huge cash deposits found during the course of search was not declared by assessee and assessee had not filed return for the year under consideration, therefore, the same constituted seized material so as to invoke section 153C in assessee’s case.
M/s.V.R.Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Madras High Court) When there was no cash involved in the transaction of allotment of shares, provisions of Section 68 of the said Act treating it as unexplained cash credit are not attracted. Learned counsel for the appellant assessee emphatically argued that inasmuch as the source of credit in […]
Travelling expenses incurred on seminar conducted in abroad by assessee-company with the financial aid of the pharmaceuticals company was justified as the same did not give any scope to treat the same for the purpose other than the business of assessee-company so far it related to the medical practitioners.
Jayashree Kothari Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad) Sec. 50C(2) enables the Assessing Officer to make a reference to the Valuation Officer. Whenever a reference is made by the AO to the Valuation Officer, such reference has to be construed as a reference made under sec. 16A(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. We have also carefully gone through […]
The issue under consideration is whether the addition made by AO u/s 68 of Income tax Act, 1961 is justified in law?
The short question in this appeal is whether the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the sole ground that the appellant had a right of reply to the show cause notice. The answer to the aforesaid question has to be in the negative, for the reasons discussed hereinbelow.
Gautam Jhunjhunwala Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata) in the light of the definition of ‘transfer’ as defined u/s. 2(47) of the Act it is clear that when any right in respect of any capital assets is extinguished and that right is transferred to someone, it would amount to transfer of a capital asset. In the light […]
