Follow Us:

Judiciary

Chhattisgarh VAT: SCN issued after three calendar years from the date of Original Assessment Order are invalid

June 26, 2018 1788 Views 0 comment Print

M/s Kishan Lal Vs Additional Commissioner Of Commercial Tax (Chhattisgarh High Court) In the proviso (a) to sub-section (3) of Section 49 of the VAT Act an embargo has been created for the purpose that no proceeding initiating suo motu revision under Section 49 (3) shall be initiated after the expiry of three calendar years […]

RBI, ED and CBI looked upon as ‘guardians of citizens’ rights’ : Bombay HC

June 26, 2018 837 Views 0 comment Print

We are concerned in this petition with the actions of the RBI and the Enforcement Directorate, both of whom refer to the criminal proceedings launched by the CBI. Those in-charge of their affairs and those in power giving them directions ought to realise that nothing would be achieved if foundations and base of these institutions is shaken and if they allegedly obey every command of the political masters

People Legitimately Expect Antiquities like Kohinoor to be brought Back: CIC

June 26, 2018 1275 Views 0 comment Print

The appellant sought information regarding efforts made by the Government of India along with the related documents and correspondence for bringing into India (i) Koh-i-Noor diamond, (ii)Sultanganj Buddha, (iii) Nassak Diamond (iv) The Sword and ring of Tipu Sultan, (v) The golden throne of Maharaja Ranjit Singh (vi) Royal Jade wine cup of Shahjahan

AAR cannot decide eligibility to claim Transitional Input Tax credit

June 26, 2018 1719 Views 0 comment Print

In re NSL Mining Resources India Private Limited (GST AAR Andhra Pradesh)  1) Whether Excise duty , CVD and SAD paid on Capital Goods purchased prior to July 1st July 2017 on which CENVAT credit has not been claimed earlier, can be claimed U/s 140(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 in the absence of registration […]

Validity of Notice U/s 148 after 4 years from the end of relevant A.Y. without specifying the amount of income escaping assessment

June 26, 2018 6270 Views 0 comment Print

Notice u/s 148 of the Act can only be issued if the income escaping assessment amounts to, or is likely to amount to Rs. 1 lac. Non-recording of the reason by the Assessing Officer that the escaped income was likely to be Rs. 1 lac or more was fatal to the issuance of the notice for reassessment.

Penalty U/s. 271AAA cannot be levies if No search has taken place at assessee’s premises

June 25, 2018 1284 Views 0 comment Print

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income on 26th March, 2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,12,72,940/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the I.T. Act was carried out at the business premises of M/s. Aggarwal Associates and Jainco Group of cases and their relatives on 19.10.2011.

Section 234E Late Fee cannot be Levied Retrospectively

June 25, 2018 23100 Views 0 comment Print

This bunch of appeals for AY 2013-14 are directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), Gwalior against upholding levy of fee u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter short the Act).

Disallowance for personal use of Car cannot be made for mere non maintenance of log book

June 25, 2018 5067 Views 0 comment Print

Where the cars were used by the society for its work of school, and these cars were used for various purposes, such as, liaisoning with DIOS and CBSE Board, etc, such contentions had not been refuted with any cogent evidence, by AO therefore, no disallowance was to be made.

Return filed in response to notice U/s. 153A(1)(a) eligible for Section 139(3) benefits

June 25, 2018 12327 Views 0 comment Print

Where no return was filed by assessee within statutory mandated time and the obligation to file any return remains suspended till such time that a notice was issued for such purpose under section 153A(1)(a), such return would be deemed to have been filed within the time permitted under section 139(1) and benefit under section 139(3) could be availed of by assessee.

Addition on account of Valuation of stock not justified if Assessee consistently follows same valuation method

June 25, 2018 2046 Views 0 comment Print

Addition made in the income u/s 69B on account of failure of assessee to substantiate the excess stock found at his premises was not justified  as the excess stock came on account of sale price taken by Department and since inception of assessee-firm, it was valuing inventory on average cost method/weighted cost price which was verifiable from the statement of accounts appended to Return of Income thus, a method of accounting / Valuation adopted by the taxpayer consistently and regularly could not be discarded by the departmental authorities.

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031