Where AO reopened the assessment, based on statements recorded and material impounded during survey, however, without establishing any whisper from the reasons recorded regarding the escapement of any income, such reassessment based on suspicion and surmises was set aside.
The assessing officer issued notice under section 148 for reassessment, during the pendency of assessment proceedings by issue of notice under section 148 which is bad in law and cannot be sustained
Kailash Assudani Vs CIT (Madhya Pradesh High Court) High Court held that It is the Adjudicating Authority who is to decide the question of Benami nature of the property. The proceedings under Section 24 of the Act contemplates the issuance of show cause notice as to why the property specified in the notice should not […]
Where specific charge for the levy of penalty was not mentioned in the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) and there was vagueness in the recording of satisfaction, the penalty proceedings were liable to be quashed.
M/s. Kumar Traders And Company & Anr. Vs. State Of Assam (Gauhati High Court) This case was adjourned on 9.8.2017, to enable the learned Govt. Advocate to receive instruction on the circumstances under, which the team from the Bureau of Investigation for Economic Offences (BIEO) had raided the Amingaon godown of the petitioners, where areca […]
In situations like this case, one may fall into realm of “preponderance of probability” where there are many probable factors, some in favour of the assessee and some may go against the assessee. But the probable factors have to be weighed on material facts so collected.
In this Question arose for consideration was whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 could be levied in respect of an addition not having been made in quantum/assessment proceedings and it was held that Imposition of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) is strictly circumscribed to addition which has been made/confirmed in the […]
These Income Tax appeals are filed by the Revenue aggrieved by the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench allowing I.T.A. Nos. 428 & 429 of 2002 filed by the respondent/assessee concerning the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99.
We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal holding that a party is not barred in law from withdrawing from its list of comparables, a company, if the same is found to have been included on account of mistake as on facts, it is not comparable. The Transfer Pricing Mechanism requires comparability analysis to be done between like companies and controlled and un controlled transactions.
Bombay High Court held that Interest on interim compensation received pending final disposal by the High Court is income if there is no direction given by the Court. The source of funds to earn income cannot determine the taxability of the income earned on the capital amount which has been invested. This in the absence […]
