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.
The division bench of Delhi High Court, in UOI v. Padmini Polymers Ltd & Anr, held that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has no jurisdiction to file Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order of the Settlement Commission.
Fact that the Assessee is a part of DuPont, a global conglomerate which had in 2011 $37.96 billion in net sales and $6.253 billion as operating profit , cannot be said to be an irrelevant factor in considering whether any genuine hardship was undergone by the Petitioner.
Decision of the arbitral tribunal to pierce the corporate veil is fundamentally flawed. It falls foul of the fundamental policy of Indian law that recognises that a company is an independent juristic person.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (ITAT) order upholding the Appellate Commissioner’s opinion that the additions made in the course of reassessments were unsustainable, were challenged by the Revenue. The reassessment notice was issued to the assessee for AY 2002- 03 on the ground that information received from the Investigation Wing pointed to its being the beneficiary of the accommodation entries that were subjected to addition under Section 68.
The Court finds that the concurrent findings of both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the ITAT are that the consistent treatment of the said transactions in the books of accounts of the Assessee and the volume and frequency of such transactions did not justify treating the income as business income.
Section 32(1)(iii) of the Act provides for deduction, in the case of any building, machinery, plant or furniture, in respect of which depreciation is claimed and allowed under clause (i) and which is sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed in the previous year (other than the previous year in which it is first brought into use), […]
