The concept of reverse though important, has limited applicability in our day-to-day life. We are familiar with reversing a vehicle for limited purposes. A vehicle cannot be driven in reverse for moving forward. However, when it comes to levy of taxation it is not the case. Under the ST, till 30th June, 2012 the concept of levying tax on reverse charge (RC) had limited applicability as only few types of transactions were covered there under. With effect from 1st July, 2012 the things are going to change dramatically.
The assessment is framed u/s. 153A of the IT Act, which is specifically meant for computation of undisclosed income, which is found during the course of search. The assessee in order to circumvent the provisions of law have tried to reduce the amount in question out of total undisclosed income determined in the course of search by claiming a bad debt which was never claimed in the regular books of account or in the original return of income filed u/s. 139(1) of the IT Act.
Bar Council of India v. A.K. Balaji It is clarified that Reserve Bank of India shall not grant any permission to the foreign law firms to open liaison offices in India under section 29 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
The Tribunal is not authorized to extend stay of demand beyond maximum period of 365 days. The decision of Tribunal to extend stay of demand beyond 365 days amounted to contravention of provisions of the law.( Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited and B. Fouress Private Limited v. CIT (ITA. No. 160&161/2012)]
While the gift is given by a person to another person who is personally related to him, the remission of trading liability takes place in business relationships. Normally, the remission of trading liability takes place only due to adverse business situation faced by a business concern.
Even though assessee is following the cash system of accounting, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income tax. v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co, 46 ITR 144 relied on by the Counsel before the Bench that mere advance received does not partake the character of income, it is necessary to examine whether the advances are in the nature of revenue receipt or not. Not only that the amounts accrued to the applicant out of the advance received in the assessment year 2005-06 were already transferred to professional income and were assessed as such.
Finance Act, 1992 made suitable amendments to the Wealth Tax Act and sec. 2(ea)(v)(b) defines “urban land”. But it does not clearly explain the status of agricultural lands situated in urban areas. In spite of that, the income tax authorities were giving exemptions to such lands till recently. This was evidenced by a document downloaded from that National Website of the Income Tax Department of India, a copy of which is attached. The said document which showed the Tax Obligation under Wealth Tax Act, clearly stated by a note “Agricultural land situated in urban area is not liable to wealth-tax”. This html document was downloaded on 06/05/2010. But, subsequently, this document has been removed from the Website. Quite coincidentally, the tax authorities have commenced taxing such urban agricultural lands citing that the Act does not exempt such lands.
In the present case, according to the Finance Minister presenting the Bill, a valid piece of legislation has been wrongly interpreted by the Tribunal. We have already pointed out that according to the existing law, if a valid piece of legislation is wrongly interpreted by the Tribunal, the aggrieved party should move higher judicial forum for correct interpretation. As pointed by the Apex Court in the case of Pritvi Cotton Mills Ltd (supra), the legislature does not possess or exercise power to reverse the decision in exercise of judicial power.
If the revenue is to reply upon some documents for some part of them to claim that the documents reveal some undisclosed income of the assessee which has escaped tax and is earned during the block period, at the same time not giving same importance to the other parts of the documents, but understanding the other clauses by way of inference or on a logic attributing certain motives to the assessee, it is not a proper way of reading the document, assuming that it is relatable to the search and has a link to the search.
It is clear to us that the Supreme Court did not hold anything contrary to what was held in the previous judgments to the effect that even if a claim is not made before the assessing officer, it can be made before the appellate authorities. The jurisdiction of the appellate authorities to entertain such a claim has not been negated by the Supreme Court in this judgment. In fact, the Supreme Court made it clear that the issue in the case was limited to the power of the assessing authority and that the judgment does not impinge on the power of the Tribunal under section 254.
