Recently Delhi High Court has in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT held that It is expected of from Assessing Officer, having rejected the stay application, to wait for a reasonable period before he takes coercive steps to recover the amounts
The share applicants’ lack of resources, the assessee’s position vis-à-vis share amounts received and its commercial condition all pointed to the amount received by it falling within the mischief of Section 68 as unexplained amounts. That the AO or ITAT chose to treat the amount, as bogus share capital, is a matter of inference which the Court would be loath to interfere with.
There can be no doubt that the burden of showing that expenditure would be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business under Section 37(1) is upon the assessee and that personal expenditure cannot be claimed as business expenditure.
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.
