Thus, on the basis of aforesaid decision, it is quite vivid that National Coal Wage Agreement is a settlement within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the ID Act and is binding as provided under Section 18(3) of the ID Act and having force of law and to continue to remain in force unless the same is altered/modified or substituted by another settlement.
HC held that Policy of Compassionate appointment excluding married daughter for consideration is a retrograde policy of Welfare State and violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution.
In the case of Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya vs ACIT, ITAT Kolkata held that although the satisfaction need not be recorded in a particular manner but from a reading of the assessment order as a whole such satisfaction should be clearly discernible.
In the case of M/s A.V. Industries vs ACIT, Mumbai Tribunal held that when the assessee shows from the record that the necessary enquiries were made by the AO and the AO had applied his mind and the view adopted by him was one of the possible views
In Mohan Jhangiani vs ACIT, Kolkata Tribunal held that Non-consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act while forming a belief that income has escaped assessment is not permissible as per law. Further, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 by the Learned AO
In the Case of ACIT vs Sri Pawan Kumar Jhunjhunwala, ITAT Kolkata held that solicitor is the agent of the client. The client makes over the money to the solicitor for some work being done by the solicitor as his agent.
In the case of ITO vs Snowtex Investment Ltd, the Kolkata Tribunal held that the claim of the assesse for set-off of loss from share dealing should be allowed from the profits from F&O in share transactions, the character of the income being the same and before application of the Explanation
The ITAT Bangalore in the case of M/s Sai Bhagwan Traders vs. ITO held that unaccounted purchases cannot be added to the total income as unexplained investments when there was no discreoency found in stock records.
Patna High Court held In the case of M/s Overseas Enterprises vs. The Union of India through the CC of Customs that there was absolutely no justification at all either on fact or in law in not giving effect to the order of the provisional release dated 28.03.2013.
ITAT Delhi held In the case of Sh. Haripal Singh vs. ACIT that it is settled legal position that that there is no estoppels in law. If in law an item is not taxable, no amount of admission or misapprehension can make it taxable.
