Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act makes every offence punishable under the Act as compoundable and there is no bar on parties to compound the offence. However, at the same time, the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu’s Case regarding imposing graded cost on litigant that the accused should pay 15% of the cheque amount by way of cost also was to be borne in mind.
Neither the submissions during the hearing nor the records of the proceedings before the lower authorities indicated correct segregation of credit taken on ‘input services’ between eligible and ineligible except to the extent that the formula had to be resorted to, therefore, the re-computation of segregation of credit restored to the original authority before whom the accountal of credit taken on ‘input service’ should be furnished by the appellant herein and to which the ratio in the formula was to be applied.
Once the statute provided for payment of interest and the stipulated conditions were fulfilled, the respondent/revenue would be obliged, in law, to pay the interest alongwith the refund. The fact that assessee submitted a communication that it will not claim interest, would not bar assessee from claiming the interest, as the law otherwise allowed for the same.
Existence of books of account maintained by assessee was a condition precedent for making addition under section 68. Where assessee had not maintained books of account, there was no legal scope to invoke provisions of section 68 and as such, addition made on such premise was to be deleted.
Even if the assessee was unrepresented, CIT(A) should have adjudicated the issues before him based on the case record before him but unfortunately, CIT(A) chose not to do so and dismissed the assessee’s appeal without examining the case on merits. Therefore, the condonation of delay was allowable and substantial justice required that the issues should be re-examined by CIT(A).
Since there was no valid transfer of land in question by assessee to the partnership firm of M/s. V Developers in the year under consideration giving rise to any capital gain and the transfer of the said land having validly taken place only in the previous year relevant to AY 2012-13 by assessee to M/s. V Developers, the capital gain arising from the said transfer was not chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee for AY 2012-13 as duly declared by assessee in his return of income for AY 2012-13.
Penalty was not to be imposed on assessee as demand did not form part of the notice dated 13.08.2020 and opportunity of hearing was not provided to assessee.
When the unit was de-bonded and no dues certificate was issued to the assessee, it was the duty of the officer, who gave no dues certificate to verify the contents whether any dues liability was pending against the assessee or he had correctly declared the true facts for de-bonding of unit. When the concerned officer had de-bonded the unit along with no dues certificate, allegation of suppression could not be alleged against assessee in this case.
Purchase and sale of shares were arranged transactions to create bogus capital short term capital loss in the garb of real transactions with the sole motive to claim short term capital loss so as to evade tax. Hence the same was not allowable under section 28.
When the issue-in-dispute was in respect of the receipt of loan and source of which was already available on record, it would not become undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee, as source of the same, was already within the knowledge of the Income Tax Department.
