otice under section 148 issued on the basis of insufficient compliance to Letters dated 20.05.2011 and dated 02.02.2016 were wholly unauthorized in law as the reasons recorded must indicate that AO had applied his mind to the fact that income was chargeable to tax under the Act and it had exceeded maximum amount not chargeable to income Tax. Hence, reassessment was not valid as there were no reasons recorded by AO in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction in this case.
Proceedings under section 148 could not be initiated for verification of the sources of investment and therefore, the reasons recorded by AO were no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction for issuing notice under section 148.
Notice under section 148 could not be issued for verification of information, but here the jurisdictional satisfaction of the essential requirement had to be shown that there had to be reason to believe that there was income chargeable to tax which was not there in the assessment order passed. Thus, the reasons recorded by AO were no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction and the assessment orders u/s 144 read with 147 was quashed.
Where no notice under section 148 is issued or if the notice so issued is shown to be invalid, or the service of notice so issued, is shown to be invalid, AO could not proceed with the subsequent proceedings for making assessment, reassessment or re-computation under section 147. Unless, the notice was served on the proper person in the manner prescribed under section 282, the service was insufficient and AO did not have jurisdiction to re-assess the escaped income.
ACIT Vs M/s. Rational Handloom Co. Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai) MAT on depreciation on write back of excess depreciation provided in earlier 10 years and credited to profit and loss account of current year. The appellant has contested the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the appellant has rightly taken the books […]
ACIT Vs M/s. Bhaawani Shankar Ginning Factory (ITAT Pune) The issue in the present ground is with respect to addition u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that assessee had received loan from Mahesh Ginning Pvt. Ltd., in which both the partners of the assessee also held 18.19% shares each. We find […]
Shri Harish Narinder Salve Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) Undoubtedly, assessee is a noted international lawyer who has set up a scholarship for creating his visibility in international arena and his social standing. The assessee has specifically submitted that it has increased lot of value of the CV of the assessee and the government of Singapore […]
Before a scheme can be regarded as a lottery, there must be the element of distribution of prizes which should be by chance or lot and such distribution should be among those who had paid a price for participating in the scheme. Mere gratuitous distribution without any price having been paid by the participants for acquiring the chance and receiving a prize that is ultimately distributed, would not amount to a lottery.
No doubt assessee has meticulously completed the paper work by routing his entire investment through banking channel but the results thereof are altogether beyond human probabilities. Because neither in the past nor in the subsequent years, assessee has indulged into any such investment having huge windfall. Had the assessee been so intelligent qua the intricacies of the share market, he would have definitely undertaken such risk taking activities in the past or future by making such investment in the unknown stock. So, we are of the considered view that what appears to be apparent in making investment by the assessee in unknown stock is not real when examined the whole transaction of sale and purchase of the stock with huge windfall to the assessee.
Where the assessee had clear intention of being an investor and had held shares by way of investment, assessee was to be treated as investor and any gain arising out of transfer of shares was to be treated as ‘capital gain’ and not ‘business income’.
