Principal CIT vs. Grasim Industries Ltd (Bombay High Court) We understand that while appointing panel Advocates for the Revenue, the requirement of having practiced for some number of years is not insisted upon in case a person has domain expertise, such as retired Officers of Revenue. If this indeed be the practice, it would, in […]
It is one of the most time-honoured and cardinal rule of administration of justice that a party (adversary) should be heard by any Court or Tribunal in the manner he has approached the Court/Tribunal and that he should never be preferred or selected over other litigants/adversaries from the long pending queue unless and until, we repeat, unless and until there are strong compelling and justifiable reasons for bestowing a preferential treatment to a party for hearing him on priority and out of turn basis.
One should not consider and reject an explanation as concocted and contrived by applying prudent man’s behaviour test. Principle of preponderance of probability as a test is to be applied and is sufficient to discharge onus.
The AO’s reason for re-opening is that along with the certificate in Form 56F, which was the certificate of the CA, the working sheet of deduction was not enclosed. That was not a requirement of law. What Form 56F has to be accompanied with is specified under the Income Tax Rules itself. The mere fact that the working sheet may not have been enclosed does not amount to a failure by the Assessee to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts. Consequently, the Court is satisfied that the second reason for re-opening is also unsustainable in law.
This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 21st January, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order dated 21st January, 2015 is in respect of Assessment Year 2010-11.
The mere circumstance that the depreciation rate is spelt out in the Schedule to the Income-tax Act in our opinion is not conclusive as to the nature of the expenditure and whether it resulted an enduring advantage to a particular assesseeIt is nobody’s case that assessee is dealing with computer softwares or is in the business of any related services.
A bare reading of cl. (baa) (1) indicates that receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges etc., formed part of gross total income being business profits. But, for the purposes of working out the formula and in order to avoid distortion of arriving export profits cl. (baa) stood inserted to say that although incentive profits and ‘independent incomes’ constituted part of gross total income, they had to be excluded from gross total income because such receipts had no nexus with the export turnover.
Section 41(1) of the Act in plain terms provides for adding back of an allowance or deduction which has been made by the assessee in any year in respect of loss expenditure or trading liability and subsequently during any previous year such liability ceases. The primary requirement of applicability of this provision therefore is where an allowance or reduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of such loss or expenditure or trading liability. When no such allowance or deduction was made, question of applicability of section 41(1) of the Act would not arise.
Principal CIT Vs M/s. Shree Gopal Housing (Bombay High Court) Admission of an appeal in quantum proceedings, if arising on a pure interpretation of law or on a claim for deduction in respect of which full disclosure has been made, may, give rise to a possible iew, that admission of appeal in the quantum proceedings […]
CIT Vs. Brahmaputra Capital & Financial Services Ltd (Delhi High Court) The revenue argues that in respect of the three entities, the decision not to reflect revenue recognition, and treat the interest payable as NPA could not be allowed and the ITAT erred in holding that under RBI’s norms, the revenue recognition method adopted was […]
