Messages

Dear Sir,

Here is order which is found on AP High Court website:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

WRIT PETITIN No.23353 OF 2010

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)


This Writ Petition is filed, invoking our certiorari jurisdiction to quash a judicial order dated 21.06.2010 made by the Learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadiri, in Crl.M.P. Nos.1700, 1702 to 1704 of 2010.  A consequential relief to direct the respondents 1 to 3 viz., the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit II (1), Hyderabad, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad and Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Hyderabad is also sought not to proceed in any manner pursuant to the warrant issued under Section 132-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Counsel for the petitioners made elaborate submissions.  Having regard to the fact that the petitioners 2 and 3 have already made applications under the First Proviso to Section 132-B of the Income Tax Act.  He seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition and pursue remedies available under law in relation to the impugned order of the Learned Magistrate as well as the application filed under Section 132-B.  Giving liberty to do so, we dismiss the Writ Petition as withdrawn.
                                                                             _____________
                                                                             V.V.S.RAO, J

                                                          ___________________________
                                                        RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J

Dear Sir,

I thinks the tax auditor has power to raise the issue and qualify report if there is some issue stat auditor has missed. It is professional duty and ethics to client.

Yours faithfully,

Bhaskar Rao, ITP

Dear Sir,

I am very interested in judgement. Can you please mail it to me at bhaskarrao25@gmail.com.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Bhaskar Rao ITP

Dear Sir,

What about 234B which will apply to difference on returned income and assessed income. I feel it has been held to be mandatory so if addition is made by learned A.O. then interest under section 234B is payable on difference between returned income and assessed income from 1st April to date of assessment.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Bhaskar Rao, ITP

Dear Sir,

Thank you for the case law illuminating. It is very useful.

Yours faithfully,

Bhaskar Rao, ITP

Dear Sir,

I found some material here which is to say as follows:

"Fees for filing appeal before the Tribunal can be paid in any challan applicable to respective assessee by mentioning in the challan that the payment is and for Tribunal fees. If it is last day, Tribunal fees can be paid by cash at the office of the Tribunal"

You can reads the contents here: http://www.itatonline.org/education16.php

Also, I found that there is specimen of the grounds of appeal and how to file an appeal on the site.

Yours faithfully,

Bhaskar Rao, ITP

Dear Sir,

I was thinking on same lines but you have put it up in very reasonable manner. I hop Govt will pay attentiom and take corrective steps as otherwise there is great injustice and to be caused to the taxpayers.

Yours faithfully,

Bhaskar Rao, ITP. 

Dear Sir,

Can we not apply under RTI to get official information. Hon'ble President should make position clear for benefit of all concerned.

Yours faithfully,

Bhaskar Rao, ITP.

Dear Sir,

Thanks for this but does it apply to Hon'ble ITAT (income-tax) because you haad only spoken about cestat.

Please clarify position sir.

Yours faithfully,

Bhaskar Rao, ITP.

Dear Sir,

Can you pl give reference of judgements of Mosebear and Eliliy. These are imp judgements on imp topic.

Yours faithfully,

Bhaskar Rao ITP.

Dear Sir,

This is good article on important topic. I also strongly feel that it is injustice to argue by dept that rule 8D is retrospective in law. The High Court judgemnent of Bombay is directly on the point. It is most surprising that attn of Hon'ble ITAT was not brought to said judgement. Otherwise verdict would have been dirferent.

Anyway, I pray that justice may be done by Hon'ble High Court in the matter.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

Bhaskar Rao, ITP

Dear Sir,

Can you pl give citation of judgemet of PH Court. it is very imp judgement.

Yours faithfully,

Bhaskar Rao ITP

Dear Sir,

Can you pl give case ref of Varas International. Where it is reported?

Yours faithfully,

Bhaskar Rao, ITP.

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for imp case law.

In one of clients cases AO has added entire amount of liabilities in balance sheet as income. It is very wrong. client was not asked to prove genuiness either. How AO can make such disallowance.

Any light on issue will be helpful.

Yours faithfully,

Bhaskar Rao ITP.

Dear Sir,

Can u pl give proper citation. I found judgement of Mehta Manufactures vs. ITO 15 SOT 92. There is no judgement of Mehta Engg. Pls clarify.

In that judgement sir it was held:

"If the assessee suffers a loss as per computation under cl. (a) or cl. (b) or cl. (c) of sub. s. (3) of s.
80HHC(3), such loss is required to be set off against the amount which bears to 90 per cent of
amounts specifically categorized either under cl. (a) or under cl. (b) of the fifth proviso the same
proportion as the export turnover bears to the total turnover; word 'or' between cls. (a) and (b) of
the fifth proviso cannot be read as 'and'."

I am not getting your point about double deduction.

Sir are you referring to judgement reg. Rogini Garments where irt was held that double deduction is not possible by special bench.

Pls. clarify because 80hhc is most important issue still.

Yourd faithfully,

Bhaskar Rao ITP.