Since the present case did not suffer from non-disclosure or omission to disclose ‘fully and truly’ the facts by the assessee, the Assessing Officer could not have been held, and was rightly not held by the learned Tribunal, to have had the jurisdiction to re-open the assessment and make assessment as in the present case.In the present case all the material facts, which were necessary for making a correct assessment, had been furnished, in the case at hand, to the Assessing Officer and when the Assessing Officer had failed to make correct assessment, the Revenue cannot blame the assessee and take recourse to the proviso to Section 147 for the purpose of re-opening the assessment.
In the instant case, assessee a recognized trust invested its funds as per instructions of Government of India in various financial institutions and those institutions deducted tax at source from interest earned on fixed deposits. In order to claim refund of TDS erroneously deducted by the financial institutions, the assessee filed returns for relevant assessment years. The AO held that since said returns had been filed beyond the prescribed time-limit, they were to be treated as invalid returns and, thus, application for the TDS refunds was to be rejected. The CIT, however, refused to condone the delay in filing the returns on the ground that it was not a case of genuine hardship as envisaged under section 119(2)(b). Contending that the stance taken by the respondent authorities is contrary to law, the petitioner-trust filed this instant writ petition for appropriate relief.
The petitioner trust, in this case, is also being deprived of a sum of Rs. 8,93,773 for which it cannot be blamed at all : it had no liability whatsoever to pay this amount to the Revenue. Yet, the Revenue has refused to refund the same by taking some hypertechnical view of the matter. If the petitioner-trust is being deprived of a sum of Rs. 8,93,773 which legitimately belongs to it due to perverse view taken by the Revenue, is it still rational to say that no genuine hardship is being caused to it ?
Considering the year during which the amount by way of interest from the trade debtor had been received by the assessee and has been treated as business income, it has to be held as derived from its undertaking, thus making it eligible for deduction under section 80-IC of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the goods in question can be treated as parts or accessories of computer system or peripherals. As per clarification by the Commissioner also printer is a part of computer system and peripherals. The printer cannot be operated without inkjet cartridges or toner cartridges and thus the said items can certainly be treated as accessories to the printer.
CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee we hold that Daga Entrade P. Ltd. lays down correct law and the same is not in conflict with the earlier order of this Court in Rajendra Singh. Jurisdiction under Section 263 can be exercised whenever it is found that the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Cases of assessment order passed on wrong assumption of facts, on incorrect application of law, without due application of mind or without following principles of natural justice are not beyond the scope of Section 263 of the Act.
Section 54E, read with section 50, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Capital gains – Not to be charged in certain cases – Assessment year 1991-92 – Whether section 50 nowhere says that depreciable asset shall be treated as short-term capital asset and section 54E has an application where long-term capital asset is transferred – Held, yes – Whether capital gain may have been received by assessee on depreciable asset, and if conditions necessary under section 54E are complied with by assessee, he will be entitled to benefit under section 54E – Held, yes
CIT v. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 91 (Gauhati High Court) -The Supreme Court, in Liberty India v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218, observed that section 80-IB provides for deduction in respect of profits and gains “derived from the business” of the assessee and accordingly, the Parliament intended to cover sources of profits and gains not beyond the first degree. There should be a direct nexus between the generation of profits and gains and the source of profits and gains, the latter being directly relatable to the business of the assessee. Any other source, not falling within the first degree, can only be considered as ancillary to the business of the assessee.
Where the assessee was not provided with any opportunity of being heard in the matter, the reasons assigned in the order which was “administrative convenience and for co-ordinating effective investigation” also could not be said to be the reasons as envisaged in Section 127(1).
Decision of a company has to rest on views of majority; in case of disagreement by the minority, remedy lies u/s 397 & 398 and not in Civil Court. When a case falls within four corners of section 397 and/or section 398, ordinary civil court’s jurisdiction would stand barred to deal with such a dispute
