Bombay HC held that supplying of reasons for reopening assessment is a jurisdictional requirement and non-supplying of same when assessee specifically asked for same would made reassessment notice bad in law.
This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act)challenges the order dated 28th June, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09.
Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that loss on sale of actionable claim by assessee was a business loss allowable as a deduction?
Bombay HC held that an unintentional error on the part of assessee while filling an appeal, more so when the department also acted ignoring the error, would not result in rejecting assessee’s appeal being time barred.
Sec 145A(a)(ii) has no applicability on service revenue which follows that service revenue need to be inclusive of service tax. It also held that service tax which has not even been claimed as deduction cannot be disallowed by recasting profit and loss account of assessee.
If the expenditure consists of merely facilitating the assessee to carry on business more profitably leaving the fixed capital untouched, it would be on revenue account.
The Honble Bombay HC in the above stated case held that when the wordings of law are quite clear then law should be applied in its letter and no space could be made for logical or beneficial or constructive interpretation.
Bombay High Court held that Supply of Reasons Recorded for Making Reassessment is Necessary Otherwise the Income Escaping Assessment shall be Void. The Assessing Officer(AO) is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the AO is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.
The respondent assessee engaged in the business of real estate consultancy / agency and property management services. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer sought to include the service tax billed by it for rendering services to the service receivers as trading receipts on invocation of Section 145A(ii) of the Act. Besides, […]
Bombay HC in the above cited case held that when the assessee’s volume of purchasing and selling shares is quite high with higher frequency of buying and selling with holding 75 days or less then its prima facie indicate that it is engaged in trading of shares unless assessee provide a sound reasoning that why transactions should not be considered as trading activity.
