By this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner inter alia prays for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus calling for the record and files in respect of the service of the Petitioner from the office of the Respondents and after perusal of the same to declare the letters dated 30th October, 2012
Assessing Officer to delete the 12% interest charged by him, on the interest free deposit received by the assessee, to determine the ALV of the rented property ignoring the well settled judicial principle that what is important is the real nature of transactions in the relied on case supra and not the facts?
In view of the fact that the Revenue has been consistently taking a view that the income earned on investments is taxable under the head capital gains no difference in facts and /or in law has been pointed out to take a different view for the subject Assessment Year
Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure on acquisition of marketing and technical knowhow is revenue in nature as the benefit would accrue over a period of time and treatment in books of account is not relevant
Mere receipt of information from any source would not by itself tantamount to reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the present case the Assessing Officer prima facie has not done the bare necessary/rudimentary enquiry into the material received before he concludes that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
In the light of the above factual position and the two Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it is conceded equally by the Department that their stand, as contained in the impugned letter, is unsustainable in law. The matter is covered by the said two Judgments. In the circumstances, we allow this writ petition and quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 821999. We direct that the declaration of the petitioners shall now be proceeded with and decided in accordance with law.
This Reference under Section 256(1)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) seeks our opinion on two substantial questions of law as framed by it. However, Mr. Rattesar, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant assessee very fairly states that he is not in a possession of evidence to show that the Reference has been served upon the Revenue.
Section 50C of Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable while computing capital gains on transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings.
Requirement of Section 153C of the Act cannot be ignored at the alter of suspicion. The Revenue has to strictly comply with Section 153C of the Act. We are of the view that non satisfaction of the condition precedent viz. the seized document must belong to the respondent – assessee is a jurisdictional issue and non satisfaction thereof would make the entire proceedings taken thereunder null and void.
Initially we had observed that the Commissioner and his officials are playing a blame game. To cover up their lapses and deficiencies, they turned around and blamed their Advocates.
