Forex trading software online securities f43

Accordingly, the restrictive provisions of s. O is bound to take cognizance of the revised return because the original return is replaced by the revised return, held the Tribunal. Adarsh Kumar Goel J, Rohinton Fali Nariman J. 292C against the assessee is not available. Secondary evidences cannot be relied on as if neither the person who prepared the documents nor the witnesses are produced. Cross-examination is one part of the principles of natural justice: A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.

It is painful to note that the Dept officials in order to achieve targets at the close of the FY not only are tempted to ignore the principles of law and natural justice but cross their limits, in complete violation of the orders issued by judicial authorities. They are pressurised by higher officials to do so and they have to choose the lesser risky option of the two i. Despite severe structures and directions of the Tribunal against the departmental officials passed vide order dated 20. 2017, which was not only very much in the knowledge of not only of the concerned officials who had done the coercive act of recovery from the assessee but also to the senior officials of the Department. The concerned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax herself had come present to argue the matter in the Stay Application on 29. 148: If the reopening is based on information received from the investigation dept, the reasons must show that the AO independently applied his mind to the information and formed his own opinion.

If the reopening is done mechanically, it is void. Also, if the reasons refer to any document, a copy should be provided to the assessee. No independent application of mind by the AO to the material forming the basis of the reasons recorded is evincible from the reasons. The AO, in the reasons, has just stated the information received and his conclusion about the alleged escapement of income. As to what the AO did with the information made available to him, is not discernible from the reasons. The AO had held that a multi layered holding structure was deliberately created to avoid taxes in India and to conceal the information about the ultimate beneficiaries. India in itself cannot be held against an assessee.