Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Discussion / Re: return in response to notice u/s 148
« Last post by KRISHAN on October 29, 2014, 06:57:23 pm »
same problems face by me in one of case. so please send me case laws for this regards

and if u have copy of cross objection of 148, than plz send me on my email :
Discussion / Re: return in response to notice u/s 148
« Last post by CA Pradip Kedia on October 28, 2014, 05:54:46 pm »
Reason to be disclosed when the Assessee declared the original return of Income filed may be considered as return in response to Reopening notice u/s. 148. [ Anand Kumar Sharma vs. ACIT 198 ITR 121 (All.) (1991)]. The decision clinches the issue. The return need not be filed again unless the assessee seeks to revise the return in some manner.
Discussion / Re: return in response to notice u/s 148
« Last post by brettlee on October 28, 2014, 03:03:53 pm »
Brother dont file any return, because it may be possible that the AO wont have any document in his possession. Further you read the judgment of G.K.N Drive Shaft 259 ITR and the judgment of Banglore Bench in the case of Shri K.V. Venkataswamy Reddy ITA No 797, 798 807 and 808 of 2009 of Banglore wherein also the assessee has filed a letter only and asked for reasons. If you dont have the judgment then give me your email Id i will mail you the soft copy
Discussion / Re: return in response to notice u/s 148
« Last post by pawansingla on October 25, 2014, 09:44:56 pm »
There are certain judgements.But right  now it willbe difficult to find out them. better file a return and ask for a copy of reasons recorded. Why to fight over such trivial issue ?
Vodafone Share Issue (Transfer Pricing) - A thorough analysis of Bombay High Court's Verdict at
Discussion / When court can take cognizance of offence committed by notary
« Last post by bpagrawal on October 13, 2014, 11:07:46 am »
When court can take cognizance of offence committed by notary?
The learned Counsel also brought to my notice that under Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 there is a legal bar for the Court to take cognizance of any offence committed by a Notary. The said provision reads thus :
"13. Cgnizance of offence.--(1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence committed by a notary in the exercise or purported exercise of his functions under this Act save upon complaint in writing made by an officer authorised by the Central Government or a State Government by general or special order in this behalf. (2) No Magistrate other than a presidency magistrate or a magistrate of the first class shall try an offence punishable under this Act".
On perusal of the above said provision, if the allegation is made against a Notary that while executing the functions of a Notary or purported exercise of the functions under the Act, if any offence is committed no Court shall take cognizance unless a complaint in writing made by an Officer authorised by the Central Government or State Government by general or special order in this behalf. Therefore, the above said provision is also a legal and specific bar to take cognizance of the offence. The charge sheet allegations is that, the accused No.3 - the petitioner has notarized the said General Power of Attorney. Except the said allegations nothing has been stated how she has taken part in cheating the complainant or any other person.
Karnataka High Court
Smt.Ratna Gouda D/O. ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Citation;2014 (3) crimes 535 karnataka
Discussion / return in response to notice u/s 148
« Last post by ketanvyas1975 on October 11, 2014, 08:29:37 pm »
An assessee filed a letter before the A.O. to treat the return filed u/s 139(1) as return in response to notice u/s 148 and requested for copy of reasons. The A.O. denies the letter and insist for filng return of income. Is the A.O. correct? Can we have any material/decision in favour of the assessee?
Discussion / Whether advocate can ask judge to recuse from case?
« Last post by bpagrawal on October 08, 2014, 10:12:41 am »
Whether advocate can ask judge to recuse from case?
Thus, neither English Law nor Indian Law nor the Patna High Court Rules nor even any precedent can come to rescue Mr. Giri as with regard to Hon‟ble the Chief Justice recusing herself from the Full Bench.

In my considered view, though the Judges are also mortal and human being and thus, not infallible but, then, it would be too naive to ask a judge to recuse himself or herself only because he/she may have decided some similar cases earlier. In this regard and on this aspect, I would not like to say anything more but to quote Justice Frankfurter who in the case of Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia Vs. Pillak reported in (1951) 343 US 451, had said as follows:- “The judicial process demands that a Judge may move within the framework of relevant legal rules and the court covenanted modes of thought for ascertaining them. He must think dispassionately and submerge private feeling on every aspect of a case. There is a good deal of shallow talk that the judicial robe does not change the man within it. It does. The fact is that on the whole Judges do lay aside private views in discharging their judicial functions. This is achieved through training, professional habits, self discipline and that fortunate alchemy by which men are loyal to the obligation with which they are interested. But it is also true that reason cannot control the subconscious influence of feelings of which it is unaware. When there is ground for believing that such unconscious feelings may operate in the ultimate judgment or may not unfairly lead others to believe they are operating, Judges recuse themselves. They do not sit in judgment.....
Judge once expressed his/her opinion in matter -It can not be said that he or she gets biased and that judge shall not hear similar matter raising identical issue.

Kalpana Rani, Versus  The State of Bihar, Mohiuddinpur,
Patna High Court LPA No.1569 of 2010 dt. 15-05-2014
Citation;AIR 2014 patna 173
Discussion / How to protect your private digital data by redaction?
« Last post by bpagrawal on September 29, 2014, 09:23:54 am »
How to protect your private digital data by redaction?

In today’s digital age, no person’s private information is considered off limits by hackers. Recently, several celebrities, including Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton, had their iCloud storage accounts hacked and their private moments shared with the world.
Confidential data that gets in the wrong hands may cause many problems. The trick is to know how to send data electronically, without giving away crucial, private information. For example, if you are asked to provide a W-2 Form as proof of income, how do you send this without revealing your social security number to potential hackers? How do you remove the data you do not want disclosed?
One of the most common formats for providing electronic information is via a PDF (Portable Document Format) file. This is where PDF redaction programs come in handy.   Redaction is the process of removing data from a file.  There are many different programs available, such as PDF Escape, Foxit, and Adobe Acrobat Professional.  Redacting a file can be a very easy process, but you have to be careful.

Here are a few tips to help you keep your sensitive information secure:
Discussion / ITAT explains how to serve Proper Notice by Post & affixtures
« Last post by taxreporter on September 27, 2014, 01:51:25 pm »

Shri Sanjay Badani Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai), SA No.216/Mum/2014 (Arising out of ITA No.5221/Mum/2014)

The reason for taking all these precautions is that service by affixture is substituted service and since it is not direct or personal service upon the defendant, to bind him by such mode of service the mere formality of affixture is not sufficient. Since the service has to be done after making the necessary efforts, in order to establish the genuineness of such service, the Serving Officer is required to state his full action in the report and reliance can be placed on such report only when it sets out all the circumstances which are also duly verified by the witnesses in whose presence the affixture was done and thus the affidavit of the Serving Officer deposing such procedure adopted by him would also be essential.

In the instant case, the whole thing had been done in one stroke. It was not known as to why and under which circumstances another entry for service of notice by affixture was made on 27-7-2012 when sufficient time was available through normal service till 30-9-2012. Nor there is any entry in the note-sheet by the AO directing the Inspector for service by affixture and had only recorded the fact that the notice was served by the affixture. It appears that the report of the Inspector was obtained without issuing any prior direction for such process or mode. However, the fact remained that Serving Officer had not set out reason for passing subsequent entry nor for adopting the mode for service by affixture and without stating the reasons for doing so, the adoption of the mode of substituted service could not be legally justified. Notice was served by affixture. The reasons for service through affixture has not been noted by the AO in the notesheet nor he has issued any direction for issuing notice through affixtures. The next entry of note sheet dated 28-7-2012 just indicates that letter was filed by the Inspector regarding service of notice by affixtures, dated 17-7-2012. Thus, on 17-7-2012, the first entry was made and without recording any apprehension about the delay by such mode second entry for affixation was made on 28-7- 2012 without showing justification for the same.

Thus, it is clear that report of the Inspector was obtained without issuing any prior direction for such process or mode. Thus, the adoption of mode of substituted service was not legally justified. It is also clear from the Inspector’s  report that there is no mention of name and address of the person who had identified the house of the assessee and in whose presence the notice u/s.143(2) was affixed. There is no evidence or indication in the report of Inspector that he had personal knowledge of the place of the business of the assessee and was, thus, in a position to identify the same. Therefore, neither the procedure laid down under order V. rule 17 had been followed nor that laid down under order V rules 19 and 20 had been adhered to. Neither before taking recourse to service by affixture, the Assessing Officer or the concerned officer had recorded the findings to justify the service by this mode nor afterwards called for the affidavit or certificate of service by affixture from the Serving Officer. He had not certified that the service had been effected by adopting this course.

In view of the above, it is clear that there was no valid service of notice u/s.143(2) by way of affixation. Since in the instant case, the department has not been able to demonstrate that notice u/s.143(2) was served within the statutory time limit, the assessment made on the basis of such invalid notice could not be treated to be valid assessment and, hence, such assessment order deserves to be treated as null and void and liable to be quashed and annulled. Accordingly, we allow assessee’s appeal on legal issue regarding non-service of notice u/s.143(2).
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10