In all fairness, while hearing an appeal from the original authority, the CIT, the CBDT who is the appellate authority cannot deny the reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioning assessee at whose instance the impugned order came to be passed and which has become the subject-matter of appeal before the CBDT.
It is no doubt true that as per section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, when the assessee goes before the authority concerned on transfer pricing, an opportunity of personal hearing should be granted to the assessee. As far as the present case is concerned, the notice dated 25-8-2009 was sent by the Transfer Pricing Officer intimating the date of personal hearing on 4-9-2009, on which date the petitioner was to file its reply. Admittedly
Once the non-productive asset like urban land is converted into a productive asset like a building which qualifies for exemption, then the assessee can start availing exemption even during the period of conversion of such non-productive asset to productive asset.
If the business is going to be paralyzed, then, the court in appropriate cases can, for the benefit and interest of the company, save the transaction involving sale of assets of a company in liquidation; it is for enabling the company to continue as a going concern and to protect the interest of shareholders and creditors that such a power is conferred and must be exercised under section 536(2) of the Companies Act.
The condition precedent in the proviso to Section 147 is that the income must have escaped assessment by the failure of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment for that Assessment Year.
We are conscious of the circumstance that in the present case the re-opening of assessment is sought to be effected within a period of four years of the expiry of the relevant assessment year. However, it is now a well settled position of law that a mere change of opinion would not justify the Assessing Officer in seeking a recourse to the powers under Section 1
We are also in agreement with the submission made by Mr. Piyush Kaushik that it is settled law that in the absence of any incriminating evidence that anything has been paid over and above than the stated amount, the primary burden of proof is on the Revenue to show that there has been an under-statement or concealment of income. It is only when such burden has been discharged, would it be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO.
Further, the Hon’ble High Court distinguished the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of A & G Projects and Technologies Limited Vs. State of Karnataka (2009 (2) SCC 326] and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Jadhavjee Laljee Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1989 (74) STC 201 (DB)].
CIT vs. Leena Ramachandran (Kerala High Court):-I-T- Sec 14A – assessee can claim deduction of interest paid on borrowed funds utilised for acquisition of shares only if shares are held as stock-in-trade and not investment: HC
Godrej & Boyce vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) Bombay HC held Rule 8D r.w. S. 14A (2) is not arbitrary or unreasonable and Rule 8D is not retrospective and applies from AY 2008-09, for earlier disallowance can be worked on reasonable basis
