We have examined the original record but did not find the proceedings or order sheets relating to original proceedings on record. This is a serious lapse, and it is apparent that the proceeding sheets in the respondents‟ custody and charge, have been removed.
The petitioner is a retired officer of the Indian Revenue Service and served in various capacities including, inter alia, the position of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Director General of Vigilance, Chief Vigilance Officer of the Central Board of Direct Taxes
The Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal placing reliance on the decision in case of CIT v. Kelvinator, (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) emphasizing that AO has power to re-open, provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief.
The ITAT in its impugned judgment took note of the statement of D.K. Jain and the retraction of the assessee on 21.02.2008. It was also noticed that the said statement was recorded in the course of survey under Section 133A and consequently did not have any evidentiary value.
Recently Delhi High Court has held in the case of CIT Vs. s Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited (WP (Civil) no. 5003/2013 dated : 21.02.2014 that ITAT has no power to grant stay beyond 365 days in light of third proviso to Sec. 254(2A) inserted by Finance Act, 2008. High Court further held that Courts must respect legislative mandate.
Section 43B applies only in cases of statutory liability. By virtue of the said section, a statutory liability is not deductable in the year in which it accrues if the same remains unpaid. A deduction with respect to a statutory liability is allowed only on payment of the same.
These appeals by the Revenue relates to Assessment Year 2001-02. The respondent-assessee, as noticed above, namely, Federal-Mogul Goetze (India) Limited, had filed return of income on 31st October, 2001 declaring „nil‟income after setting for brought forward losses and depreciation.
The assessing officer had imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in each case where PAN Number was not provided by the deductee. There were in all 30706 cases in which the PAN Number was missing or was incorrectly stated.
Penalty levied u/s 271AAA on members of AOP is rightly deleted by tribunal in a case where income initially disclosed and declared in the hands of AOP is subsequently disclosed in the individual hands of members forming AOP. CIT Vs. VIRENDARA KUMAR GUPTA (DELHI HIGH COURT)
The Delhi High Court has delivered a judgement in the case of Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India Versus Union of India & Others on the powers of CAG to audit the revenues of Private Telecom Companies flowing to the Consolidated Fund of India
