Since the addition pertained to the “receipt of money” from the sale of flats by the assessee and these amounts did not represent the actual receipts in the hands of the assessee, they could not be subjected to tax.
In the instant case, assessee was a senior citizen and a medical practitioner, had his Demat accounts frozen by the National Securities Depository Limited (NSDL) under the directives of SEBI.
Since there was no failure on the part of assessee to fully and truthfully disclose material facts therefore, assessment under sections 147-148 was not valid as the specific provisions of Section 153C were deemed to take precedence over the general provisions of Section 147.
Assessee, an individual and a resident of UAE, had transactions with Indian citizens, who were subject to search operation and whose assessments were centralized with the Central Circle at New Delhi.
AO noticed that the assessee in its computation of income claimed prepaid finance charges amounting to Rs.19,96,29,043/- and he asked to clarify or show-cause as to how the prepaid finance charges were allowable.
Assessee was a venture capital trust. Institutional investors contribute money to the trust fund and the same was managed by an Investment Manager. An investigation was conducted by Anti-Evasion Unit of the Jurisdictional Commissionerate against assessee.
Re-opening of assessment by AO was unjustified if the original return had not been processed by following the decision in case of Super Spinning Mills Ltd. vs Addl. CIT 37 DTR (Chennai) (T.M) (Trib).
Compensation received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was taxable under section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 145B(1) as the provisions of section 10(37) deal with ‘compensation’ only and not interest on compensation or enhanced compensation.
However, the completed/unabated assessments could be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 and those powers were saved.
Supreme Court held that High Court was bereft of the power to quash a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, using the powers inherent to it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as long as there was no consent from the complainant.
