Search Results For: Andhra Pradesh High Court


Pr CIT vs. Baisetty Revathi (Andhra Pradesh High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 13, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) penalty can be levied only where the charge is unequivocal and unambiguous. The AO must specify whether the charge is of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof and which one of the two is sought to be pressed into service. He is not permitted to club both by interjecting an ‘or’ between the two. The ambiguity in the show-cause notice compounded by the confused finding of the AO that he was satisfied that the assessee was guilty of both renders the proceedings void (K. P. Madhusudhanan 251 ITR 99 (SC) & MAK Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) distinguished

On principle, when penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by the revenue under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the specific ground which forms the foundation therefor has to be spelt out in clear terms. Otherwise, an assessee would not have proper opportunity to put forth his defence. When the proceedings are penal in nature, resulting in imposition of penalty ranging from 100% to 300% of the tax liability, the charge must be unequivocal and unambiguous. When the charge is either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, the revenue must specify as to which one of the two is sought to be pressed into service and cannot be permitted to club both by interjecting an ‘or’ between the two, as in the present case

CIT vs. Janapriya Engineers Syndicate (Andhra Pradesh High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 24, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 23, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(ia): Despite stay by High Court, Special Bench verdict In Merilyn Shipping is binding on the ITAT due to judicial discipline

The Tribunal had to consider whether in view of the Special Bench verdict in Merilyn Shipping & Transport 146 TTJ 1 (Vizag), a disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) could be made in respect of the amounts that have already been paid during

CIT vs. Godavari Electrical Conductors (Andhra Pradesh High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 29, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 5, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Issue of notice straightaway through affixture is not proper & renders proceedings void. On the expiry of the limitation period valuable rights accrue to the assessee

(i) The Tribunal took note of the fact that (a) the issuance of a notice straight away through affixture is not proper; (b) no efforts were made to send the notices to the partners through registered post with acknowledge due;

CIT vs. Shri Girija Smelters (P) Ltd (Andhra Pradesh High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 29, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 14, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1988-89 to 1997-98
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
An ITO cannot carry out the functions of an authority under the Central Excise Act and arrogate to himself the power to determine the quantity of production, or the intricacies of the manufacturing process. He must seek assistance of the concerned authority

(i) Even where the authorities of the Central Excise Department doubt the accuracy of figures mentioned in the registers, or if they find it difficult to understand the complexity of the manufacturing process, they seek the help of the experts.

Top