scope of section 154 does not extend to a debatable issue and hence the assessing officer in exercise of power u/s 154 could not have withdrawn the interest u/s 244A(1)(b) on the refund of excess self assessment tax.
Bombay High Court held that Simultaneous penalty can be imposed both on the partners and partnership-firm under Section 112 (a) where the charge on the firm is of acting or omitting to act rendering the goods liable for confiscation and the notice issued to the partner makes out a separate case of abetment on his part.
Suspicion and doubt may be the starting point of an investigation but cannot, at the final stage of assessment, take the place of relevant facts, particularly where a deeming provision is sought to be invoked.
Delhi High Court held in case of Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO upheld the order of Delhi ITAT and held that under Section 79 of the Act the set off and carry forward of loss, which is otherwise available under the provisions of Chapter VI,
Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of The United Planters Association of Southern India Vs. Union of India, Stayed the Operation and Implementation of Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 to the extent the same gives retrospective from 01.04.2014
Delhi High Court held In the case of Dushyant Kumar Jain vs. DCIT held that it is only the AO who has issued the original assessment order under Section 143 (3) ,who is empowered to exercise powers under Section 147/148 to re-open the assessment.
Delhi High Court held In the case of YUM Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that both entities i.e Yum Asia and Yum Singapore which hold the shares of assessee, Yum India, for pre and post restructuring period respectively, were distinct entities.
Delhi High Court held In the case of CIT vs. Dharampal Satyapal that as per section 50B, the value of the net worth must be computed by decreasing from the actual cost of asset falling within the block, the depreciation actually allowed in respect of previous years relevant to the assessment year commencing before 1st day of April, 1988
Karnataka High Court held In the case of M/s. Safina Hotels Private Limited vs. CIT & DCIT that it is clear that the notice is issued proposing to levy penalty under Section 271(1) (b) whereas the order is passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1) (c), which clearly indicates that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer while issuing the notice under Section 274.
The notice is issued proposing to levy penalty under Section 271(1) (b) of the Act whereas the order is passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act which clearly indicates that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer while issuing the notice under Section 274 of the Act.
