In the present case, however, the assessee is a private limited company. The share application money was received through private placement. The Assessing Officer has brought on record evidence in the shape of Income tax returns and bank statements of the share applicants to show that these companies had very meager income or were running in losses. It has also been brought on record that in most of the cases, the amounts were deposited in the account either on the same day or a day before the issue of cheques to the assessee. All the share applicants had address in Delhi.
Pine Packaging Private Ltd V/s. CIT (Delhi HC) Compensation received from customer for under utilisation of taxpayer’s capacity was not profit derived from manufacture/production and was therefore not eligible for deduction under Section 80IC of the Income-tax Act,1961
CA Anand Parkash, FCA, addressed a letter dated 30.4.2012 to Delhi High Court in which he set out the numerous difficulties faced by Income Tax assessees country wide due to the faulty processing of the Income Tax Returns and the TDS deducted at source and request that certain directions be issued by this Hon’ble Court so that lakhs of tax payers are saved from the harassment in filing revised returns/rectification petitions every year.
Division Benches of this Court in Bhagwat Dayal Sharma Vs. UOI ILR (1974) Del 847 and Peoples Union for Democratic Rights Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs ILR (1987) Del 235 have held that where the power to do or not to do a thing is optional and discretionary and there is no statutory obligation, direction to the Executive to do a particular thing cannot be given even where matter is of public importance.
There is no requirement in Section 147 or Section 148 or Section 149 that the reasons recorded should also accompany the notice issued under Section 148. The requirement in Section 149(1) is only that the notice under Section 148 shall be issued. There is no requirement that it should also be served on the assessee before the period of limitation
In the present case, the assessee is an employee and is in service of a company. He has salaried income. The assessee had also made purchases and had sold securities. He is maintaining two separate portfolios i.e. investment portfolio and trading portfolio. The Assessing Officer has admitted the said position in the assessment order.
Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Rewashanker A. Kothari, (2006) 283 ITR 338 (Guj.), after examining earlier judgments on the question has laid down several parameters’ tests which have to be applied to find out when income from transactions in shares’ securities should be treated as income from business or the gain which has to be taxed under the head “capital gains”. The parameters/tests are as under:-
The Tribunal is required to deal with the factual findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and, then after examining the document and evidence, give and record their factual conclusions. The factual conclusion should be based upon reasons and should be outcome of analysis and discussion. The Tribunal being the final fact finding authority cannot merely record its conclusions without discussing the factual matrix, evidence and material.
Respondent has filed the affidavit in which he has affirmed that he had initiated proceedings for reassessment on the basis of precise information received from the Enforcement Directorate vide its letter dated 19th December, 2007 received by him on 20th December, 2007 and that in the said letter the relevant documents were forwarded to the Range Head and subsequently endorsed to the Assessing Officer by his superior. It has been further averred in the affidavit that all the facts contained in the reasons were available within the jurisdiction of the respondent and were in his knowledge.
The word ‘compromise’ itself signifies an agreement between the two parties to compound the offence. If the parties do not agree to compound the offence, the Court has to proceed with the complaint. It is different thing that the Court on considering the offer of payment of cheque amount plus cost may not award a punishment of imprisonment and may only award penalty plus compensation.
