ITO VS. VARIA PRATIK (ITAT A’BAD) Though s. 292BB comes into force on 1.4.2008 and not from any particular assessment year, it is declaratory, procedural and curative in nature and accordingly the validity of notices issued/served will have to be decided after 31.3.2008 in accordance with the provisions of section 292BB irrespective of the assessment year involved;
SHIVSAGAR VEG VS. ACIT It is incumbent upon the Tribunal, being the final authority of facts, to appreciate the evidence, consider the reasons of the authorities below and assign its own reasons as to why it disagrees with the reasons and findings of the lower authorities. The Tribunal cannot brush aside the reasons or findings recorded by the lower authorities. It must give reasons and its failure to do so renders its’ order unsustainable
It is settled law that a writ cannot be entertained against a mere show-cause notice unless the Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts. The assessee has not been able to demonstrate absolute want of jurisdiction in the AO.
Gujarat State Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. JCIT The deduction claimed by the assessee under section 42 cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the deemed income under section 115JA
Valuing the closing stock at net realizable value method is duly recognized by AS-2 issued by the ICAI but, the onus is on the assessee to prove that the net realizable value whatever has been shown by him is the correct net realizable value and is less than the cost: the assessee has to satisfy the Assessing Officer by adducing the evidence that the net realizable value is less than the cost. D. Subhashchandra & Co. v. ACIT
The period of limitation during which an order imposing a penalty can be passed in the case falling under section 275 (1)(c) would be a period of six months beginning from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of pending was initiated. The period of limitation during which an order imposing a penalty can be passed in the case falling under section 275 (1)(c) would be a period of six months beginning from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of pending was initiated.
ACIT v Makote Hoshizaki The perquisite value of rent free accommodation as per Rule 3 of Income-tax Rules, 1962 will be 20 per cent and not 10 per cent of the salary as reduced by the rent, if any, actually paid by the employer or the actual rent paid by the employer in case the premises are not owned by the employer whichever is lower.
BLK Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO The assessee company shall, for the purpose of section 73 of the IT Act, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business to the extent to which its business consists of the purchase and sale of shares of other companies; thus, the loss incurred in purchase and sale of shares of other companies shall be deemed to be a speculation loss.
Thermal Systems (Hyd.) Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT The failure of the Assessing Officer to record the reasons and to make enquiry with regard to the claim of the assessee makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
If the income tax department fails to appeal against judgments against it by high courts on a certain legal question for several years, is it barred from raising the question later? No, said the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs J.K. Charitable Trust.
