See the footer if you would like to unsubscribe from the newsletter
Dear Subscriber,
Dear Subscriber,
Kaish Impex Private Limited vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)
S. 83 CGST Act: Power to provisionally attach bank accounts is a drastic power. Considering the consequences that ensue from provisional attachment of bank accounts, the power is not to be routinely exercised. S. 83 confers power on the authorities to provisionally attach bank accounts to safeguard Govt revenue but the same is within well-defined ambit. Only upon contingencies provided therein that the power u/s 83 can be exercised. This power is to be used in only limited circumstances and it is not an omnibus power. If proceedings are launched against one taxable person, bank account of another taxable person cannot be provisionally attached merely based on the summons issued u/s 70 to him. Power to provisionally attach bank accounts is a drastic power. Considering the consequences that ensue from provisional attachment of bank accounts, the Courts have repeatedly emphasized that this power is not to be routinely exercised. Under Section 83, the legislature has no doubt conferred power on the authorities to provisionally attach bank accounts to safeguard government revenue, but the same is within well-defined ambit. Only upon contingencies provided therein that the power under section 83 can be exercised. This power is to be used in only limited circumstances and it is not an omnibus power
Cleared Secured Services Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 226(3): Undue haste in recovery of disputed demands by issue of s. 226(3) garnishee notices, in respect of which the hearing of appeal as also the stay petition is already concluded, is indeed inappropriate. The revenue authorities should have at least waited the disposal of the stay petition. Interim stay granted and garnishee proceedings placed under suspension till the disposal of the stay petition We have noted that the hearing of stay petition was concluded, as per information available to us, on 17th January 2020, but the order thereon has not been passed as yet since one of the Members constituting coram of the bench has gone on tour to Delhi benches due to unavoidable official exigencies. In the meantime, however, the revenue authorities have already issued garnishee notices, under section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the bankers of the assessee on 17th January 2020 itself. Such an undue haste in recovery of the disputed demands, in respect of which the hearing of appeal as also the stay petition is already concluded, is indeed inappropriate. The revenue authorities should have at least waited for the disposal of the stay petition
Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO (ITAT Ranchi)
(i) 56(2)(vii)(b): The amendment w.e.f AY 2014-15 will not apply to a purchase transaction of immovable property for which full consideration is paid pre the amendment. Mere registration at a later date will not cover a transaction already executed in the earlier years and substantial obligations have already been discharged and a substantive right has accrued to the assessee therefrom. The Revenue is debarred to cover the transaction where inadequacy in purchase consideration is alleged (ii) Interest u/s 234A & 234B is chargeable with reference to the returned income and not the assessed income It is not in dispute that purchase transactions of immovable property were carried out in FY 2011-12 for which full consideration was also parted with the seller. Mere registration at later date would not cover a transaction already executed in the earlier years and substantial obligations have already been discharged and a substantive right has accrued to the assessee therefrom. The pre-amended provisions will thus apply and therefore the Revenue is debarred to cover the transactions where inadequacy in purchase consideration is alleged
Posting Of Three Vice-Presidents Of ITAT
It was reported in December 2019 that the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) has approved the proposal of the Department of Legal Affairs for appointment of three officers to the posts of Vice-President in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The posting orders of the said three Vice-Presidents is as followsTax Advocate Approved For Appointment As Judge Of Bombay High Court
We are pleased to report that the Supreme Court Collegium, in its meeting held on 22nd January, 2020, has approved the proposal for elevation of an Advocate as Judge of the Bombay High CourtITAT Slams Dept For Undue Haste In Recovery Of Disputed Demands
Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Cleared Secured Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy CIT SA No. 337/Mum/2019 in ITA No. 7302/Mum/2018 dated January 20, 2020 where an application for extension of stay of demand application is pending, and the department conducted the survey and attached the bank accounts, though the matter was heard and decision was awaited, the Hon'ble Tribunal heard the matter in the afternoon and same day passed the order restraining the revenue from further action. The Tribunal strongly condemned the revenue's undue haste in recovering the demandITAT Announces Bench Non-Sitting Days During Jan To Dec 2020
The ITAT has issued a directive dated 15th January 2020 setting out the schedule of Bench non-sitting days during the period January to December 2020. The non-sitting days are on account of the Summer, Diwali and Winter holidays. The dates have been finalized in the light of consultation with the Zonal Vice Presidents See Also: Digest of case laws (updated regularly) containing latest judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
P. P. Mahatme, POA Lorna Margaret Pinto vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Capital Gains from Family Arrangements: A family settlement which is a settlement amongst family members in the context of their 'preexisting right' is not a "transfer". Such a settlement only defines a preexisting joint interest as a separate interest. However, if there is no preexisting right, the family arrangement constitutes a "transfer". Merely because dispute involved some family members and such dispute is ultimately settled by filing consent terms, the same cannot be styled as a family arrangement or family settlement so as to hold that the consideration received as a result of such settlement, does not constitute capital gain (all imp verdicts referred)__._,_.___
Posted by: "editor@itatonline.org" <itatonline.org@gmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
.
__,_._,___
0 comments:
Post a Comment