CBI Arrests CCIT + Two ITOs For Bribe, Gets Assaulted By Furious AOs
The CBI has issued a press release stating that P. K. Sharma, the Chief Commissioner Income Tax, and Shailendra Bhandari, ITO, have been arrested for allegedly taking bribe of Rs 15 lakh. In two other press releases, the CBI has stated than an ITO in Mumbai and another in Lucknow have also been arrested for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 10 lakh and Rs. 75,000 respectively. According to news reports, the team of CBI officials was allegedly attacked with fire extinguishers by tax officials in Lucknow, after the investigating agency arrested one of their colleagues for bribe-taking. Some CBI officers were injured and are being treated in hospital. The CBI has filed an FIR against the attackers
DDIT vs. Serum Institute of India Limited (ITAT Pune)
S. 206AA: Even in the absence of PAN payer not required to deduct TDS at 20% if case covered by DTAA
Section 206AA of the Act is not a charging section but is a part of a procedural provisions dealing with collection and deduction of tax at source. Therefore, where the tax has been deducted on the strength of the beneficial provisions of section DTAAs, the provisions of section 206AA of the Act cannot be invoked by the Assessing Officer to insist on the tax deduction @ 20%, having regard to the overriding nature of the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act
ITO vs. Deepak Popatlal Gala (ITAT Mumbai)
Addition towards bogus purchases cannot be made solely on the basis of statements of seller before sales-tax authorities. The AO has to conduct own enquiries and give assessee opportunity to cross-examine the seller
Where the AO has made addition merely on the basis of observations made by the Sales tax dept and has not conducted any independent enquiries for making the addition especially in a case where the assessee has discharged its primary onus of showing books of account, payment by way of account payee cheque and producing vouchers for sale of goods, such an addition could not be sustained
Ramesh Kumar & Co vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
AO is not entitled to treat all purchases as bogus merely because sales-tax department has called the seller a "Hawala dealer". The AO ought to have verified the bank details of the assessee and the seller and other evidence before treating the purchases as bogus
The AO has made the addition as some of the suppliers of the assessee were declared Hawala dealer by the Sales tax Department. This may be a good reason for making further investigation but the AO did not make any further investigation and merely completed the assessment on suspicion. Once the assessee has brought on record the details of payments by account payee cheque, it was incumbent on the AO to have verified the payment details from the bank of the assessee and also from the bank of the suppliers to verify whether there was any immediate cash withdrawal from their account
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:
Check Out The Rogue's Gallery Of Absconding 'Wilful Tax Defaulters'
The Income Tax department has adopted the aggressive strategy of 'naming and shaming' some large tax defaulters by publishing names of 18 entities who owe over Rs 500 crore tax to the exchequer
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment