While executive action resulted in his passport being unjustifiably impounded, this rendered if impossible for the assessee to leave India. He virtually became an unwilling resident on Indian soil without his consent and against his will.
The only question here is whether reasons could at all be recorded after issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act. And, secondly, that as the reasons were recorded after the issuance of Section 148 notice, whether the proceedings were not vitiated.
Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Pepsi Foods Private Limited vs. ACIT [W.P.(C) 1334/2015] pronounced on 19-05-2015 wherein the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Act’).
The petitioner was a firm of auditors. During the course of search and seizure operations conducted against EMAAR, the laptop computers of two employees of the petitioner, who were conducting an audit of EMAAR, were seized by the Deputy Director.
In the absence of any specific provision under which the so called notional income on advances, could be brought to tax, we do not see as to how the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax can be sustained.
There is nothing in Section 80I(2)(iv) to say that the relationship in order to qualify for the term employment must be one of master and servant and cannot extend to contractual employment. That the concept of permanent or direct workmen is the precondition envisioned in Section 80I(2) when it was the term employs does not appear to be reflected in the statute.
Only amount which an assessee aggrieved by delayed payment can legitimately claim under the statute is interest and that no other interest on such statutory interest is payable. CIT Vs. Indian Farmer Fertilizer Co-operative (Delhi High Court)
Assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act are not a game of hide and seek. The inquiry in the wake of a notice under Section 148 is not an empty formality. It must be effective and with a sense of purpose.
The petitioner has filed an appeal being ITA No.825/Del/2014 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being aggrieved by the order passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel on 31.10.2013. The Tribunal, at the initial stage, that is, on 31.03.2014, had granted stay of the demand which had been raised subsequent to the said order
For the assessment year 2008-09 the assessee had reported a tax exempt income to the tune of Rs. 18,26,360/- amongst other heads of income. The AO added back Rs. 19,96,242/- under Section 14A. While doing so, the AO applied Rule 8D by taking into consideration the total quantum of interest other than that invested
