The parties cannot be deprived of their rights to challenge the award on the ground that there is a delay of 2 years and four months and the Award as declared after such a long period, in our view, can be challenged under Section 34 of the Act. The party cannot be remedy-less. Even under Section 16, the objection even if decided, can be re-agitated under Section 34 of the Act. There is no such scheme for the delayed action of the Arbitrator. Considering the aforesaid aspects, in our view, the award is bad in law.
In the present case the Director of Investigation had reliable and sufficient information to proceed with the authorisation for search. No malafides have been attributed or pleaded in the writ petition. The petitioners have been subjected to block assessment on the basis of the recoveries made during search, in which they are pursuing the remedies. The appeal filed by the department has been allowed by ITA, and the matter in remand is pending consideration in assessment.
In the present case, however, the assessee is a private limited company. The share application money was received through private placement. The Assessing Officer has brought on record evidence in the shape of Income tax returns and bank statements of the share applicants to show that these companies had very meager income or were running in losses. It has also been brought on record that in most of the cases, the amounts were deposited in the account either on the same day or a day before the issue of cheques to the assessee. All the share applicants had address in Delhi.
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.
