Upholding the Central Information Commission (CIC) order that office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is well within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Delhi High Court Wednesday ruled that judges should declare their assets. In a historical judgement, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat said judges are accountable but they are also subject to some constraints.
In Ram Commercial Enterprises 246 ITR 568 (Del) {affirmed in Rampur Engineering 309 ITR 143 (Del) (FB)}, the Delhi High Court held that if the AO did not record his satisfaction that the assessee had concealed particulars of his income before completion of the assessment proceedings, the initiation of penalty proceedings
This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the issuance of a writ to waive the interest levied under Section 220 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act for short) pertaining to three consecutive years in respect of which the original Demand had already been paid. The Petitioner has contended that for the Assessment Years 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83, the Revenue has raised a demand of Rupees 2,84,546/-, Rupees 6,95,479/- and Rupees 15,23,079/- respectively in regard whereof Demand Notices were served on 30.03.1983, 27.04.1983 and 27.04.1983 respectively.
If apparently reliable material could not be directly used against an assessee solely because it was not collected during a Search of that assessee, a fortiori, material palpably concerning a third party with no connection with the raided party must be ignored.
8. Having heard the learned counsel Mr C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate for the assessee-company and Ms Prem Lata Bansal for the Revenue we are of the view that the judgment deserves to be sustained. The principle of mutuality as enunciated by the Courts in various cases is applicable to a situation where the income of the mutual concern is the contributions received from its contributors
4. At the outset, we need to underscore that so far as findings of fact are concerned interference of the High Court would be justified only if it appears to it that the conclusions arrived at by the ITAT are palpably perverse. 5. The entitlement of sundry parties to the receipt of commission essentially entails a determination
12. In order to come to a definite conclusion whether section 194H of the Act would be applicable to the assessee-airline in respect of transaction, in issue, we propose to first look at the scope and ambit of section 194H of the Act and then analyse the transaction as to whether it falls within the purview of the said Section. In this context, it would be necessary to extract the relevant portions of Section 194H of the Act.
8.3 It cannot be disputed and it is not the case of either side that the reasons extracted hereinabove did not precede the issuance of notice under Section 148(1) of the Act. The requirement for recordal of reasons by the Assessing Officer before issuing a notice is provided for under sub-section (2) of Section 148 of the Act. 8.4 A perusal of the reasons would thus show that the Assessing Officer was
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue as well as the assessee we are of the view that the answers to the questions framed has to be found in favour of the assessee and against Revenue for the reasons given hereinafter. It is clear upon perusal of the facts and circumstances quoted by us hereinabove that if JISCO had to have a successful rights issue it was incumbent that it received a subscription
Assessee-company under the tripartite agreement, in particular, clause 4.1 was under no obligation whatsoever to contribute any money to its wholly owned subsidiary YRMPL. The facts as found also show that whatever was spent by the assessee-company by way of advertisements towards liability to advertisers such as O&M and HTA etc. was allowed. Furthermore, the facts also reveal that the total contributions received during the period by YRMPL was Rs 2.64 crores out of which it had admittedly spent Rs 2.19 crores and the balance Rs 44.44 lacs remained unspent. The point to be noted is that what the assessee-company in law could not have claimed directly, that is, by making a provision for advertising expenditure could it then be allowed to claim an amount as an expense merely on account of the fact that it had set up an intermediary in the form of a wholly owned subsidiary
