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.
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.
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal on analysis of the facts of the case have reached to the conclusion that section 50C has no application as it was a case of transfer of plots which was stock in trade. An income earned from such transaction is liable to be taxed as income from business activity.
If on a cursory glance it appears that the demand raised has no leg to stand, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. From the perusal of materials brought on record, we are of the view that the Commissioner having himself expressed opinion in the order that there is enough strength in the plea of the assessee for stay of the demand, there was no occasion to direct for deposit of 30 percent.
Dinesh Chandra Agarwal Vs. UOI (Allahabad High Court)- Rule 13E of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963 as amended on June 3, 2009 imposes a complete ban on practice by the retired members before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Granting a interim relief Honorable high Court has held as under
CIT Vs. Smt. Shaila Agarwal (Allahabad High Court ) – he second proviso to Section 153A of the Act, refers to abatement of the pending assessment or re-assessment proceedings. The word ‘pending’ does not operate any such interpretation, that wherever the appeal against such assessment or reassessment is pending, the same alongwith assessment or reassessment proceedings is liable to be abated. The principles of interpretation of taxing statutes do not permit the Court to interpret the Second Proviso to Section 153A in a manner that where the assessment or reassessment proceedings are complete, and the matter is pending in appeal in the Tribunal, the entire proceedings will abate.
Ram Naresh Singh Vs. Lal Singh And Another (Allahabad High Court) – Assessment of giving precedence to cases on the facts and circumstances involved is better judged by the Court where the matter is pending so that there can be uniformity in disposal of cases by the Court below without giving precedence to a case which is not more urgent over other urgent cases. Such assessment can be made by the Court concerned and, therefore, it would be appropriate that the petitioner should file an appropriate application before the Court concerned in the case itself praying for expeditious disposal and give reasons for the same.
Supreme Court dismisses revenue appeal confirming ITAT stand on joint names issue. Allahabad High Court judgment explained. #IncomeTax #LegalNews
Though the proviso to section 11 was inserted by section 80 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 10-9-2004, and sought to incorporate the machinery provision for recovery of sums due to government under the Act earlier incorporated in Rule 230(2), it is only an enabling provision for recovery of sums due to the government by which the Central Excise Department is permitted to attach and sell all excisable goods, materials, preparations,
1. I have been privileged to read the judgement prepared by brother Justice Dr. Satish Chandra. I agree with the final verdict in the present appeal but respectfully, I express my separate opinion. We have heard Shri D.D. Chopra, learned counsel for the appellants.
