we feel that it would be appropriate if the ACIT reconsiders the application of the petitioner for stay in the light of the observations contained in the said decision [Soul v. DCIT (supra)]. This is so because according to the petitioner the assessment is a high pitched one inasmuch as it is approximately 17 times of the returned income.
It is clear that the assessee may be under the bonafide belief that TDS is not liable to be deducted on payments made to non-banking financial institution. Section 273B of the Income Tax Act provides that no penalty under section 271C shall be imposable on the person or the assessee as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions, if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.
Tribunal was justified in assessing the correctness of the notice for reopening the assessment under Section 148 on the basis of the reasons which were disclosed by the Assessing Officer. Those reasons, as the Tribunal noted, could not give rise to a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for the simple reason that in the computation of income, the assessee had adopted the circle rate which is higher than the sale consideration. Hence, the appeal will not give rise to any substantial question of law.
In the present case, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee had invested a certain amount of its funds in shares and that the dividend which has been received or receivable did not form part of the total income.
Sub-section (1) of Section 151 provides inter alia that where an assessment has been made under section 143(3), a notice under section 148 cannot be issued by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner unless the Joint Commissioner
CBDT is directed to modify the notification dated 20th August, 2014 issued in exercise of powers under section 119 of the Act by extending the due date for furnishing the return of income to 30th November, 2014.
Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice RM Lodha, Justices JS Kehar, Jasti Chelameswar, AK Sikri and RF Nariman has struck down National Tax Tribunal set up vide NTT Act, 2005.
In the present case, we find that the assessee has earned interest income on fixed deposits made by the assessee with sub-treasury, Meenachili, Kadappattoor and SBI Pala totaling Rs. 20,21,909/- and the interest income earned on the surplus funds of the assessee cannot be considered
Many a times dealers face a situation where due to technical error or clerical mistake while making payment of sales tax, tax is wrongly paid in wrong account i.e. instead of paying under the head of Central sales tax, it is paid under the head State VAT/sales tax.
As per sub-section (1) of section 282, the notice is to be served on the person named therein either by post or as if it was a summons issued by Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908). The relevant provision for effecting of service by different modes are contained in rules 17, 19 and 20 of Order V of CPC. Rules 17, 19 and 20
