In Principal Commissioner of Income tax v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt Ltd, the Delhi High Court held that re-assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be made only on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of IT Department.
Transfer Pricing : Impact of delayed associated enterprise receivables subsumed in working capital adjustment made by the assessee company. Delhi High Court confirms ITAT’s deletion of notional interest adjustment on delayed AE-receivables.
High Court held that to say that the person being prosecuted or proceeded against can only be ‘shown’ such documents, but not provided copies thereof is untenable even on a plain reading of Article 26 (2) of the OECD Model Convention.
There has been constant reopening of assessments by Assessing Authorities on mere change of opinion while law is well settled on the point that an assessment cannot reopened by recourse to section 147/ 148 of the Income tax Act, 1961 on mere change of opinion of the Assessing Officer(AO).
The Delhi High Court, in the case of Deepak Malhotra vs Deepti Malhotra and Ors, has held that the proportion of the husband’s income to be awarded as maintenance pendente lite to the wife is dependent on the surrounding circumstances and cannot be determined by a strict mathematical formula.
A perusal of the common order of the ITAT shows that it first dealt with one common ground raised by the Assessee in all its appeals which concerned the jurisdictional issue of the validity of the invocation of Section 153A of the Act by the Revenue. It was contended that for the AYs 2000- 01 […]
There is, therefore, nothing to contradict the categorical finding of the ITAT that the document which formed the main basis for initiation of the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act does not belong to the Assessee. One of the principal conditions for attracting Section 153C of the Act is, therefore, not fulfilled in the present case.
The AO examined the nature of the transactions involving the Assessee and the payments received therefor. The reopening was not based on any fresh material. By revisiting the same materials the successor AO now concluded that the payments received by the Assessee pursuant to the O&M Agreements should be treated as FTS.
The law in relation to searches under Section 132 of the Act has been explained in a large number of decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The jurisdictional facts that have to be established before a search under Section 132 (1) of the Act can be authorized are that (i) the authority issuing the authorization is in possession of some credible information, other than surmises and conjectures (ii) that the authority has reason to believe that the conditions stipulated in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 132 (1) qua the person searched exist; and (iii) the said information has nexus to such belief.
The Court is not satisfied that the retraction made by the Assessee two years after the declaration was bonafide. There was no satisfactory explanation for not including the said amount in the return of income filed by the Assessee on 26th September, 2009.
