The assessee was a partner in a firm. Upon retirement, he received an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs in addition to the balance lying to his credit in the books of the firm in full and final settlement of his dues. The assessee filed a return in which the said amount was not offered to tax on the ground that it was a capital receipt. No assessment order was passed.
The Tribunal, first and foremost, is duty bound by Article 141 of the Constitution of India to ensure that it follows binding precedent of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal as a judicial body must follow principles of consistency when it decides cases. The lack of consistency is clear on the face of record. Judicial orders must be passed by the Tribunal
The admitted position before the Court, on the basis of the material on the record, is that by the notice under Section 148 issued on 30th November 2009, the assessment pertaining to the year 2002 03 was sought to be reopened after the lapse of four years. Section 147 postulates inter alia that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe
In AY 2002-2003, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IB (10) of Rs. 3.85 crs which was allowed by the AO vide s. 143 (3) order. The assessment was reopened u/s 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year on the ground that the claim for deduction u/s 80IB (10) included ineligible items of other income such ’society deposit’,
it will be in the interest of justice to set aside the final order passed by the Settlement Commission and to remand the matter back to the Settlement Commission for hearing parties afresh and to pass orders as per law. Facts and circumstances noted in respect of writ petition no.2191 of 1999 are also relevant for the remaining writ petitions
The income from investment activity was offered as capital gains while the income from dealing activity was offered as business income. This position was accepted by the AO in the earlier years. In AY 2005-06, the AO took a different view and held that even the shares held on investment account had to be assessed as business income
The assessee is a State Govt. undertaking. Its appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the approval of the Committee on Disputes (“COD”) had not been obtained. In a writ petition filed by the assessee, the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the revenue stated that it was not the contention of the revenue that COD approval
Taking a strict view of frivolous petitions that flood the courts, the Bombay high court in an unprecedented move has ordered a city-based organisation, the Bhrastachar Nirmoolan Sanghatana , to pay Rs 40 lakh as legal costs after dismissing its public interest litigations against a super-luxury tower on Peddar Road
There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. The approach of the authorities should be justice oriented so as to advance cause of justice. If refund is legitimately due to the applicant, mere delay should not defeat the claim for refund.
In the instant case, the deductee has already discharged tax liability with interest payable under Section 201(1)(a) of the Act. As such no further interest can be claimed by the revenue from the respondents either under Section 234A or 234B or 234C of the Act. The view taken by the Tribunal for the reasons stated cannot be faulted.
