1.     CIT Vs M/s U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd- Allahabad High Court- Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)-

Before imposing penalty for concealment of income, the Assessing Officer should bring concrete evidence or material on record for his satisfaction that income has been concealed or inaccurate particulars thereof have been furnished - Mere initiation of proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be assumed that such a satisfaction was arrived at by the Assessing Officer.

(Click here for judgment)

    

2.     Visvas Promoters P Ltd vs ITAT ,ACIT - Hon’ble Madras High Court on Writ  and Appeal against ITAT order u/s 254(2)-

In this case, Madras HC has decided two issues, one that no appeal lies against an order passed under section 254(2) and for this the High Court has relied on Chem Amit vs.CIT  [(2005) 272 ITR 397), where in a Division Bench of Bombay High Court has held that an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Act rejecting an application for rectification cannot be said to be an order passed in an appeal by the Tribunal and therefore, a further appeal to the High Court under section 260A against such order would not lie. In so far as second issue is concerned, it has been held that non consideration of non-jurisdictional high Court order  did not constitute mistake apparent from records and for holding so the High Court has followed the decisions of P&H High Court in the case CIT vs  Vardhman Spinning  reported in 226 ITR 296.

(Click here for judgment)

 

If you have any query please e-mail at voiceofca@gmail.com.

   

"Things are only impossible until they're not"

 

Thanks for your valuable time

"Voice of CA"

CA. Kapil Goel, Moderator-Direct Taxes, Mob:9910272806, cakapilgoel@gmail.com

CA. Sidharth Jain, Co-Moderator, Mob: 9810418700, sidhjasso@yahoo.com

CA. Mukesh K Bansal, Co-Moderator-FEMA, mkak@rediffmail.com