Onus on petitioner partnership firm to show unexplained ...

Petitioner firm failed to prove Rs 1.01 cr investment/expense belonged to partners. Rental income used for maintenance.

Case Laws Income Tax

August 10, 2024

Onus on petitioner partnership firm to show unexplained investment and expenditure belonged to partners. No records showing partners had substantial income to lend Rs. 1.01 crore. Firm had rental income used for maintenance. No infirmity in impugned order rejecting petition u/s 264. Objection on non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) within 6 months not countenanced as not raised earlier. Section 292BB deems notice valid if assessee participated in proceedings, except if no notice issued. Explanatory Note to Finance Act, 2008 clarifies legal fiction inapplicable if objection not raised before assessment completion. Petition dismissed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Onus on petitioner partnership firm to show unexplained ...

Petitioner firm failed to prove Rs 1.01 cr investment/expense belonged to partners. Rental income used for maintenance.

Case Laws Income Tax

August 10, 2024

You may also like:

Contravention of Sections 8(1) and 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - receiving foreign exchange payments in 1996-97 through fake export documents...

Penalty proceedings against firm and partners u/s 271(1)(c) – the amounts invested in the Fixed Deposit Receipts belongs to the firm and the income also belong to the...

Transfer of an industrial undertaking from urban to rural area by a partnership firm qualifies for exemption u/s 54G of the Income Tax Act. The assessee, a partner in...

Penalty u/s 271B - no tax audit conducted u/s 44AB - bonafide belief - When Gross profit is more than Rs.4 crores, it means the Gross Receipts were definitely more than...

Disallowance of interest u/s. 36(1)(iii) - partners of the assessee firm had over withdrawn an amount as in excess of what was brought by them in the firm - the assessee...

Right of bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C - offence u/s 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c), 132(1)(1)(i) of CGST Act, 2017 - The statutory period as provided under Section 167(2) Cr.P....

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 justified due to tangible material available with Assessing Officer (AO) to form reasonable belief regarding escapement of income....

Research and Development expenses (R&D Expenses) - Allowability of expenses u/s 35(2) - The expenses are not covered u/s 35(2) - The assessee has not claimed the same...

The petitioner sought regular bail in a money laundering case alleging that he had projected and concealed proceeds of crime related to a scheduled offense. The court...

Petitioner sought regular bail in case involving alleged wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed using fictitious invoices from non-existent/suspicious firms. As per...

Income Tax: Limit of remuneration to working partners in partnership firms allowed as deduction increased - on first Rs 6,00,000 of book profit or loss, Rs 3,00,000 or...

Vicarious liability of partner of the firm - separate identity of partnership firm - merely the petitioner running a firm, but it is not a legal entity and it cannot be...

The Appellate Tribunal found the Appellant Company guilty of contravening u/s 9(1)(a) of FERA 1973 by making payments to a person outside India without RBI permission....

Migration from Composition Scheme to regular scheme of GST payment - Permission to petitioner to file ITC-01 FORM to avail its eligible ITC or input lying on the stock...

Dishonour of cheque due to insufficient funds - no vicarious liability u/s 141 NI Act. Petitioner not shown as partner in firm through certificate from Deputy Registrar...

Quick Updates: