We may in concluding note that the basis on which the assessee is sought to be taxed in the present case in respect of the amount of Rs.32,00,000/ is that there was a dividend under Section 2(22)(e) and no other basis has been suggested in the order of the Assessing Officer.
Keyman Insurance Policy for section 10(10D) is not confined to a policy taken by a person on life of an employee, but also extends to an insurance policy taken with respect to life of another who is connected in any manner whatsoever with business of subscriber.
Where an order passed by the Assessing Officer is subject to an appeal that has been filed, the power of the Commissioner to invoke his revisional jurisdiction under section 263 can only extend to such matters which have not been considered and decided in the appeal.
If the business is going to be paralyzed, then, the court in appropriate cases can, for the benefit and interest of the company, save the transaction involving sale of assets of a company in liquidation; it is for enabling the company to continue as a going concern and to protect the interest of shareholders and creditors that such a power is conferred and must be exercised under section 536(2) of the Companies Act.
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
