Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 creates a deeming fiction whereby both the Company and every person in charge are deemed guilty of the offence. The legislative intent is clear that the Company must first be arraigned, only then can its officers be fastened with vicarious liability.”
In the present case, there was no variation in the petitioner’s income by the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer. The petitioner contended that since no income variation was made, there was no occasion for assessing officer to pass any draft assessment order and serve it to petitioner.
‘Information regarding the foreign assets has been placed on record in the form of documents before the Magistrate by the IT Department which has been sought by another government Department for the purpose of investigation. It is not a case that the information has been demanded for public dissemination.’
In the present case, notice under Section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1861 is not served on legal heir of the assessee. The said notice is served on the assessee, even after the knowledge that the assessee is deceased.
For the purposes of Income Tax Act, 1961, the business which is involved in letting out premises on hire, would be said to have commenced right from the stage of repairing and furnishing of property for being rented out and cannot be treated as commenced only when the premises are actually let out to tenants.
The Income-tax Tax Act, 2025 is concise, lucid and easy to read and understand which will help in reducing disputes, litigations and provide clearer tax certainty to taxpayers.
Mere maintenance of running account by the appellant with GPIL, having continuous business transactions with them or mere repayment of advance within same financial year cannot be the reasons to admit that the amount of advance is actually utilized for execution of business transaction.
The Bill attempts to replace 6-decade old law for the benefit of taxpayers.
by Shareen Gupta* and Rajan Mishra**
The assessee’s case was that whether he had filed a belated return of income, after the expiry of the due date or not, was immaterial and the point in time when the offence under Section 276CC is committed is the date immediately following the due date for furnishing the return of income as prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 20 — Civil suit — Maintainability — Issue of territorial jurisdiction — Adjudication of, as preliminary issue
Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 112 — Provision under, regarding birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy — Invocation: Direction issued for
Merely because a parent entity may exercise shareholder influence over its subsidiary that would not lead to an assumption that the subsidiary in question was operating as a mere puppet or that it was wholly subservient to the parent entity.
The taxpayer is nowhere distinguished between NRIs and Indian Citizens. The notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 must comply with the requirement of the Scheme whether or not the taxpayer is NRI/Indian Citizen.
The Court stated that due to the non-obstante clause in Chapter X-A i.e., the General Anti-Avoidance Rules (‘GAAR’), its provisions get an overriding effect over and above the other existing provisions of law.
The twin conditions, i.e., firstly, the order being erroneous and secondly, the order being prejudicial to the interest of revenue, must exist before power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is exercised.
Calcutta High Court explicitly stated that if the appellant failed to comply with the court’s directive, the benefit of the order would not apply, and the appeal would be dismissed without further reference to the court.
“The satisfaction arrived at by the prescribed authority under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) must be clearly discernible from the expression used at the time of affixing its signature while according approval for reassessment under Section 148 of the Act.”
“If there is equality and uniformity in each group, the law will not become discriminatory, though due to some fortuitous circumstance arising out of peculiar situation, some included in a class get an advantage over others so long as they are not singled out for special treatment.”
Calcutta High Court held that the dismissal of the writ petition does not bar the appellant from pursuing these issues in the appellate process.