Explore the intricacies of Section 263 under the Income Tax Act with the Supreme Court’s perspective in Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282. The retrospective amendment in 2005, addressing the complexities of Section 80HHC, does not trigger Section 263. The court emphasizes the existence of two plausible views on ‘profits’ at the time of the Commissioner’s order in 1997. Uncover the nuanced interpretation of ‘prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ and the significance of the 2005 amendment in this insightful judgment.
The Tribunal has the discretion of granting stay and dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty. Secondly, the argument that under Section 35-C(2A) of the Act, the appeal is required to be heard within 180 days, would also be frivolous as the stay order is not co-terminus with the period prescribed for disposal of the appeal.
The learned Tribunal has noted that it was common ground between both the parties that the income of the Assessee was liable to be determined on an estimate basis.
CIT vs Bhiwani Synthetics Ltd.- Citation 199 Taxation 204 Validity of Return – Return signed by General Manager of Company The return of the assessee company was signed by the General Manager (Finance). The CIT(A) and the Tribunal directed the A.O. to give an opportunity to the assessee to cure the defect. The company had given a power of attorney to the said General Manager to sign the return. The company had not disowned the return. The order of the Tribunal was not prejudiced to Revenue. No question of law arose.
Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is empowered to transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him to any other Assessing Officer. It also deals with the procedure when the case is transferred from one Assessing Officer subordinate to a Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to an Assessing Officer who is not subordinate to the same Director General, Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. The aforementioned situation and the definition of expression ‘case’ in relation to jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer is quite understandable but it has got nothing to do with the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal or High Courts merely because Section 127 of the Act dealing with transfer has been incorporated in the same chapter. Therefore, the argument raised is completely devoid of substance and we have no hesitation to reject the same.
Assessee tried to take the benefit of the AAR of British Gas (I) Pvt Ltd….but seem to have failed..!!!! ! Income Tax – Assessee posted abroad for more than 182 days on deputation – DTAA – Income not taxed by the contracting state – Return filed and tax paid in India – Later contended that since he was non-resident during the FY, his income was not taxable in India – Since his income was not brought to tax in the contracting state, such income is taxable in India as the purpose of such bilateral treaties is to avoid double taxation and not to exempt income from taxation altogether – Assessee’s appeal dismissed
The Applicant, an informer of the department, filed a RTI application seeking inspection & copies of all records available with the income tax department including assessment orders of Escorts Ltd, Dr. Naresh Trehan and connected parties. The application was rejected by the PIO on the ground that there was no overriding public interest in disclosing the information relating to third parties and the disclosure would lead to an invasion of privacy of the assessees. On appeal by the applicant, HELD allowing the appeal:
The view that section 43B is a general provision which merely bars deduction of specified sums, unless they are actually paid and whereas provisions of section 36(1)(va) specifically deal with deduction in respect of payment of employees’ contribution to provident fund and other funds; therefore, the provisions of section 36(1)(va),
In the present case, as is evident from admitted facts, the notice was Under Section 16(1). It is a general notice on the assessee as if she made a gift which had escaped assessment. There is no reference or mention to alleged deemed gift made by her mother Smt. Gurcharan Kaur which the G.T.O. wished to assess.
The learned D.R has vehemently contended before us that no assessee can be said to be providing telecommunication services unless such services are provided from one end to the other end. According to him, the assessee is operating as backbone industry and connect the calls received through other service providers and, therefore, does not provide any service to the actual user of the phone. In my opinion, this contention cannot be accepted for the reason that legislature itself has allowed the deduction to telecommunication services through satellite or turnking network.
