The condition precedent in the proviso to Section 147 is that the income must have escaped assessment by the failure of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment for that Assessment Year.
We are conscious of the circumstance that in the present case the re-opening of assessment is sought to be effected within a period of four years of the expiry of the relevant assessment year. However, it is now a well settled position of law that a mere change of opinion would not justify the Assessing Officer in seeking a recourse to the powers under Section 1
Godrej & Boyce vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) Bombay HC held Rule 8D r.w. S. 14A (2) is not arbitrary or unreasonable and Rule 8D is not retrospective and applies from AY 2008-09, for earlier disallowance can be worked on reasonable basis
Vodafone International Holding B.V. (Vodafone NL) was issued an order by the Indian Tax Authority assessing a capital gains tax alleged to have arisen to the Hong Kong based Hutchison Group (Hutch) on acquisition of controlling interest in an Indian entity, Vodafone-Essar Ltd. The controlling interest was acquired by acquiring the shares of a foreign holding company that indirectly held more than 50% of the shares of the Indian entity.
While Explanation 2 to s. 147 deems income to have escaped assessment if excessive deduction is allowed, the reopening of an assessment u/s 147 has serious ramifications because the AO is empowered to reassess income even in respect of issues not set out in the notice. Therefore, if the power to rectify an order u/s 154(1) is adequate to meet a mistake or error in the order of assessment, the AO must take recourse to that power as opposed to the wider power to reopen the assessment. If the error can be rectified u/s 154, it would be arbitrary for the AO to reopen the entire assessment u/s 147. Further, the error in the order was not attributable to a fault or omission on the part of the assessee and the assessee cannot be penalized for a fault of the AO;
In a setback to foreign carrier companies, the Bombay high court has ruled that delayed payment of foreign travel tax (FTT) could attract penalty under the provision of the Finance Act, 1979. Rejecting the plea of petitioners Malaysian Airlines, Saudi Arabian Airlines, North West Airlines and Kenya Airlines
When the disclosure is made subsequently to the seizure of incriminating material, the disclosure is made because of adverse consequences and such disclosure is not voluntary. On the facts of the case, the disclosure was made pursuant to search and seizure of incriminating material which includes the diary. The issue whether the authorities could have deciphered the documents on their own without petitioner co-operating, is immaterial.
The AO passed an assessment order in which he declined to follow the judgement of the Bombay High Court in CST vs. Pee Vee Textiles 26 VST 281 on the ground that the said judgement “is not accepted by the Sales Tax Department and legal proceeding is initiated against the said judgment”. On a Writ Petition filed by the assessee, the High Court has taken the view that as the said judgement in Pee Vee Textiles is not stayed,
The Bombay High Court has granted an interim stay on collection of Service Tax levied on buildings under construction, following a writ petition filed by the Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry (MCHI). Mr Sunil Mantri, President, MCHI, said the chamber had urged the High Court to restrain the respondents (Union Government and others) from taking steps against the members of the Chamber in respect of transactions for construction,
Construction of a complex intended for sale by the builder before, during or after construction is deemed to be a service provided by the builder to the buyer;No service tax is leviable if entire payment for the property is paid by the buyer after completion of the construction including certification by the local authorities;
