In order to fall within the proviso to section 147, apart from stating that there are reasons for the authority to believe that there has been escapement of chargeable income, it should also record that such escapement is due to the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material particulars necessary for his assessment for relevant assessment year; such a recording is absolutely mandatory as per the provision and as laid down in various judgments
Once the three conditions pointed out by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 200 are satisfied, the assessee would be entitled to deductions in respect of the interest and charges paid on the loans; the matter would be different only in a case where after borrowing the funds from the bank, the assessee utilizes those very funds by giving interest free loans to others.
The department filed an appeal in the High Court and claimed that as the Tribunal’s order was received on a particular date, the appeal was on time. However, the assessee obtained information from the Tribunal under the Right to Information Act and pointed out that the order was served on an earlier date and that the appeal was belated. HELD taking a serious view of the matter and summoning the Revenue Secretary and Chairman CBDT.
The Bombay High Court held that expression “order” for the purposes of section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) has a wide connotation. The words used under section 264(1) of the Act are ‘any order other than order under section 263’. Hence, the rejection of an application by the Assessing Officer (AO) for lower withholding rate under section 197 (See Note-1 Below) of the act is an ‘order’ eligible for revision by the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) under section 264 of the Act.
Kerala High Court dismisses Fed. Bank’s appeal, ruling against 60% depreciation on EPABX and mobile phones. No merit found in prior period expenditure dispute.
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in its decision dated 22 November 2010 on the issue of constitutional validity of the levy of service tax on renting of immovable property and the validity of the retrospective amendment to the definition of ‘renting of immovable property’ under Finance Act, 1994 ruled in favor of the Revenue.
: It cannot be held that renting of property did not involve any service as service could only be in relation to property and not by renting of property. Renting of property for commercial purposes is certainly a service and has value for the service receiver. Even if it is held that transaction of transfer of right in immovable property did not involve value addition, the provision cannot be held to be void in absence of encroachment on List II.(Para 22) It is well settled that competent legislature can always clarify or validate a law retrospectively. It cannot be held to be harsh or arbitrary. Object of validating law is to rectify the defect in phraseology or lacuna and to effectuate and to carry out the object for which earlier law was enacted. (Para 23) we do not find any ground to set aside giving of retrospective effect to the amendment from
The tax payer is engaged in the manufacture of cement. The adjudicating authority had disallowed the CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on services of repairs, maintenance and civil construction etc. as the services were used in the residential colony of the tax payer on the ground that the said services were not covered under the definition of input service and hence ineligible as input service defined under Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
The Bombay High Courthas, in a recent ruling’ in the case of McKinsey and Company Inc, United States v. Union of India , held that there must be a valid and acceptable basis for making a departure from the order passed by a superior official and that the hierarchical discipline should be observed while implementing the fiscal legislation. In the absence of that, the exercise of the powers by the Assessing Officer would be arbitrary and open to challenge.
Explore the judgment on whether the tower with antenna qualifies as capital goods. Adjudicating pre-deposit directives under Cenvat Credit Rules.
