The facts about the Bank Accounts and other circumstances are in the exclusive knowledge of the assessee and non co-operation leads to derailment of It is the duty of every assessee to duly respond to statutory notices failing which the law provides imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of Rs. 10,000/- each default. In this case, assesse’s non- compliance of statutory notice is for more than 3 times in each A. Y.
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has in the case of Hariom Steels Pvt Ltd has held that penalty cannot be levied when deeming provisions are applied for assessing income.
Extract of Reply Submitted by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in Delhi High Court in which he stated that he never asked senior advocate Mr. Ram Jethmalani to pose objectionable questions to Mr. Arun Jaitley or use objectionable words while recording of evidence in the Rs. 10-crore defamation suit initiated by Mr. Arun Jaitley.
Before the High court, the petitioners, M/S. Kumho Petrochemicals Company Limited And Another, made two submissions. Firstly, the order of continuation of anti-dumping duty, made after expiry of the duty period, is bad in law. Secondly, the initiation of the anti-dumping duty investigation was also bad in law on the ground that public notice of initiation was not published in the Official Gazette before January 01, 2014, i.e., before the expiry of the anti-dumping duty at the end of five years period.
Law does not permit the revenue to reject the amount determined as rent or license fees by the assesse on mere doubt or suspicion. There has to be cogent and satisfactory material to indicate that the rent or fees determined by the parties are not indicative of the fair or market rent.
On Further hearing in the case of J K Mittal & Company Vs. Union Of India & Ors. on 18th July 2017, Delhi High Court has held that till further orders, all legal services provided by advocates, law firms of advocates, or LLPs of advocates will be continued to be governed by the reverse charge […]
In a new affidavit filed before Supreme Court on 17th July 2017 Central Government made it clear that it cannot give more time to deposit old currency notes, as in case a fresh opportunity is offered for exchange of SBNs, it would lead to rampant illegal trading of these SBNs (that is, the SBNs being […]
Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the amount received by the assessee by way of exemption of sales tax payments was not a trading receipt but was a capital receipt, hence not liable to tax?
The Department further initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on ground that the assessee failed to offer explanation for making such a claim. It was noted that once the claim was rejected the onus was on the assessee to dislodge the revertible presumption of the claim of concealment of income. However, the tribunal deleted penalty by holding that merely because the claim is not accepted would not give rise to penalty proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made a legal claim in a transparent manner. Whether such a claim is acceptable or not, is altogether a different matter, it said.
Assessee was a non-employee director and share holder in the company and no salary or director’s fees was paid to her by the company during the year under consideration.
