There can be no doubt that the burden of showing that expenditure would be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business under Section 37(1) is upon the assessee and that personal expenditure cannot be claimed as business expenditure.
We have examined the original record but did not find the proceedings or order sheets relating to original proceedings on record. This is a serious lapse, and it is apparent that the proceeding sheets in the respondents‟ custody and charge, have been removed.
The petitioner is a retired officer of the Indian Revenue Service and served in various capacities including, inter alia, the position of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Director General of Vigilance, Chief Vigilance Officer of the Central Board of Direct Taxes
The Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal placing reliance on the decision in case of CIT v. Kelvinator, (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) emphasizing that AO has power to re-open, provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief.
The ITAT in its impugned judgment took note of the statement of D.K. Jain and the retraction of the assessee on 21.02.2008. It was also noticed that the said statement was recorded in the course of survey under Section 133A and consequently did not have any evidentiary value.
Recently Delhi High Court has held in the case of CIT Vs. s Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited (WP (Civil) no. 5003/2013 dated : 21.02.2014 that ITAT has no power to grant stay beyond 365 days in light of third proviso to Sec. 254(2A) inserted by Finance Act, 2008. High Court further held that Courts must respect legislative mandate.
Impugned order of the Tribunal has been passed in total disregard of the principles laid down in KEC International Ltd. Vs. B.R.Balakrishnan and others {(2001)251-ITR-158 (Bom)} wherein a Division Bench of this Court laid down the following parameters to be observed by the Authorities while considering the stay application :
On remand, the Assessing Officer to take a fresh decision in accordance with law and the case law at the time he decides the matter, inclusive of the decision of the Special Bench of the tribunal rendered in the case of IndusInd Bank Ltd..
After Kerala HC Karnataka HC too stay the enforcement of notices U/s. 234E by TRACES. In this case Petitioners have questioned the constitutional validity of the provision of Section 234E of the income Tax Act and a notice to the petitioner levying fee vide annexure A1 to A21 and Annexure – B.
Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the order imposing penalty does not disclose that prior approval of the Joint Commissioner was obtained in either of the two cases. He drew our attention to a judgment of this Court in the case of AWT No. 4 of 2003 and AWT No. 5 of 2003
