Search Results For: Madhya Pradesh High Court


COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 19, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 26, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147 Reopening to assess Bogus share capital: Law explained whether allegation that assessee is a dummy concern used to route unaccounted money by way of bogus share application money is sufficient to reopen assessment (all imp judgements referred)

The respondents have stated that there are large number of dummy/bogus/shell/briefcase/paper entities including the petitioner/company in the group, which is being managed and controlled by Shri Anand Bangur for the purposes of routing unaccounted money and the department with great difficulties and after examining huge evidence, has arrived at a conclusion to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner and it is not a case where some unilateral action has been taken against the petitioner, it is a case where petitioner will receive every opportunity to defend himself and the entire mechanism has been provided under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 9, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 14, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2) Limitation period: The amendment to s. 254(2) w.e.f. 01.06.2016 to curtail the period available to file rectification applications from four years to six months cannot apply to appellate orders passed prior to that date because that would take away a vested right

The reason for the said principle is not far to seek. Though periods of limitation, being procedural law, are to be applied retrospectively, yet if a shorter period of limitation is provided by a later amendment to a statute, such period would render the vested right of action contained in the statute nugatory as such right of action would now become time barred under the amended provision

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 10, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 15, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2000-01 to 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 153C: Even if the AO of the searched person and of the "other person" (i.e. the assessee) is the same, the proper satisfaction has to be recorded before assuming jurisdiction over the assessee. Failure to record satisfaction renders the assessment order null and void

The fact that incidentally the Assessing Officer is common at both the stages would not extricate him from recording satisfaction at the respective stages. In that, the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the items referred to in Section 153C belongs or belong to a person (other than the person referred to in Section 153A), being sine qua non. He cannot assume jurisdiction to transmit those items to another file which incidentally is pending before him concerning other person (person other than the person referred to in Section 153A). The question as to whether that may influence the opinion of the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, also cannot be the basis to take any other view.