The principle is that one who has made the decision having a judicial flavour should not participate in appeal arising from such a decision. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the principles of law I am of the opinion that the Commissioner has manifestly erred in law and acted against the settled principles of natural justice by deciding the appeal against his own order passed as an inferior authority.
Pine Packaging Private Ltd V/s. CIT (Delhi HC) Compensation received from customer for under utilisation of taxpayer’s capacity was not profit derived from manufacture/production and was therefore not eligible for deduction under Section 80IC of the Income-tax Act,1961
word ‘transfer’ does not include partition or family settlement. HC observed that it is well settled that a partition is not a transfer. What is recorded in a family settlement is nothing but a partition. Every member has an anterior title to the property which is the subject matter of a transaction, that is, partition or a family arrangement. So there is adjustment of shares, crystallization of the respective rights in family properties and therefore it cannot be construed as a transfer in the eyes of law.
CA Anand Parkash, FCA, addressed a letter dated 30.4.2012 to Delhi High Court in which he set out the numerous difficulties faced by Income Tax assessees country wide due to the faulty processing of the Income Tax Returns and the TDS deducted at source and request that certain directions be issued by this Hon’ble Court so that lakhs of tax payers are saved from the harassment in filing revised returns/rectification petitions every year.
Division Benches of this Court in Bhagwat Dayal Sharma Vs. UOI ILR (1974) Del 847 and Peoples Union for Democratic Rights Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs ILR (1987) Del 235 have held that where the power to do or not to do a thing is optional and discretionary and there is no statutory obligation, direction to the Executive to do a particular thing cannot be given even where matter is of public importance.
Even if any provision of law is mandatory and provides for charging of tax or interest, the view taken in CIT vs. Ranchi Club Ltd 247 ITR 209 (SC) is that such charge by the assessing officer should be specific and clear and assessee must be made to know that the assessing officer has applied its mind and has ordered charging of interest. The mandatory nature of charging of interest and the actual charging of interest by application of mind and the mention of the proviso of law under which such interest is charged are two different things.
It is noticed that the appellant-assess sold the agricultural land, which was mutated in his name, for a sale consideration of Rs. 1,61,09,100/-. Thereafter out of the selling price, the appellant-assessee purchased land in the name of his son and daughter-in-law for a total consideration of Rs. 1,22,71,440/-. It is relevant to note that the land sold was in the name of appellant-assessee, while the land purchased was in the name of his son and daughter-in-law.7. A bare reading of Section 54B of the Income Tax Act does not suggest that assessee would be entitled to get exemption for the land purchased by him in the name of his son and daughter-in-law.
The only dispute by the Revenue is that the amount of remuneration has not been quantified in the partnership deed. It is mentioned in clause 8 of the partnership deed that remuneration will be payable as per norms fixed by the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act. Thus the quantification of the remuneration is apparent from the clause 8 of the partnership deed.
There is no requirement in Section 147 or Section 148 or Section 149 that the reasons recorded should also accompany the notice issued under Section 148. The requirement in Section 149(1) is only that the notice under Section 148 shall be issued. There is no requirement that it should also be served on the assessee before the period of limitation
Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Rewashanker A. Kothari, (2006) 283 ITR 338 (Guj.), after examining earlier judgments on the question has laid down several parameters’ tests which have to be applied to find out when income from transactions in shares’ securities should be treated as income from business or the gain which has to be taxed under the head “capital gains”. The parameters/tests are as under:-
