The Petitioner seeks the quashing of a notice dated 20-3-2015 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act (‘Act’) by the Assistant Commissioner (hereinafter assessing officer AO) and the order dated 1-2-2016 passed by the assessing officer disposing of the objections filed by the Petitioner to the said notice.
It is one of the most time-honoured and cardinal rule of administration of justice that a party (adversary) should be heard by any Court or Tribunal in the manner he has approached the Court/Tribunal and that he should never be preferred or selected over other litigants/adversaries from the long pending queue unless and until, we repeat, unless and until there are strong compelling and justifiable reasons for bestowing a preferential treatment to a party for hearing him on priority and out of turn basis.
One should not consider and reject an explanation as concocted and contrived by applying prudent man’s behaviour test. Principle of preponderance of probability as a test is to be applied and is sufficient to discharge onus.
The AO’s reason for re-opening is that along with the certificate in Form 56F, which was the certificate of the CA, the working sheet of deduction was not enclosed. That was not a requirement of law. What Form 56F has to be accompanied with is specified under the Income Tax Rules itself. The mere fact that the working sheet may not have been enclosed does not amount to a failure by the Assessee to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts. Consequently, the Court is satisfied that the second reason for re-opening is also unsustainable in law.
The mere circumstance that the depreciation rate is spelt out in the Schedule to the Income-tax Act in our opinion is not conclusive as to the nature of the expenditure and whether it resulted an enduring advantage to a particular assesseeIt is nobody’s case that assessee is dealing with computer softwares or is in the business of any related services.
CIT Vs. Brahmaputra Capital & Financial Services Ltd (Delhi High Court) The revenue argues that in respect of the three entities, the decision not to reflect revenue recognition, and treat the interest payable as NPA could not be allowed and the ITAT erred in holding that under RBI’s norms, the revenue recognition method adopted was […]
Samvardhana Motherson International Ltd. Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) The chronology of events leading up to the passing of the orders under section 143(3) of the Act, clearly shows that the assessing officer was ‘satisfied with the claim of the assessee’ while passing the original orders. Rule 8D is triggered only in a case where […]
Virag Tiwari Vs. Principal CIT & Others (Delhi High Court) In the present case we perceive that an equitable resolution is possible on interpretation of the provisions without undermining the object and purpose behind the Amendment Act. Thus while we have rejected the argument that advance tax of Rs. 85,50,000/- can treated as payment of […]
These are eleven appeals by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (hereafter ‘Revenue’) under section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (WTA), against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for assessment years (‘AYs’) 1984-85 to 1992-93 and assessment years 1997-98 to 1998-99.
Indo Arya Central Transport Limited Vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) M/s Indo Arya Central Transport Limited have filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:- “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 14.03.2017 passed by the Respondent No. 1; (b) Restrain the Respondent No. 1 and the officers […]
