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
Vodafone International Holding B.V. (Vodafone NL) was issued an order by the Indian Tax Authority assessing a capital gains tax alleged to have arisen to the Hong Kong based Hutchison Group (Hutch) on acquisition of controlling interest in an Indian entity, Vodafone-Essar Ltd. The controlling interest was acquired by acquiring the shares of a foreign holding company that indirectly held more than 50% of the shares of the Indian entity.
Appeal by revenue against the order of Tribunal setting aside penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 – The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee did not have the requisite mens rea to evade payment of service tax
While Explanation 2 to s. 147 deems income to have escaped assessment if excessive deduction is allowed, the reopening of an assessment u/s 147 has serious ramifications because the AO is empowered to reassess income even in respect of issues not set out in the notice. Therefore, if the power to rectify an order u/s 154(1) is adequate to meet a mistake or error in the order of assessment, the AO must take recourse to that power as opposed to the wider power to reopen the assessment. If the error can be rectified u/s 154, it would be arbitrary for the AO to reopen the entire assessment u/s 147. Further, the error in the order was not attributable to a fault or omission on the part of the assessee and the assessee cannot be penalized for a fault of the AO;
In a setback to foreign carrier companies, the Bombay high court has ruled that delayed payment of foreign travel tax (FTT) could attract penalty under the provision of the Finance Act, 1979. Rejecting the plea of petitioners Malaysian Airlines, Saudi Arabian Airlines, North West Airlines and Kenya Airlines
