he barrage of indiscriminate allegations include misuse of official position, corruption, insulting him and son: colluding with retired income tax officers to harm his client so on and so forth. The severity of accusations and fury emerging from their language is highly derogatory, defamatory and contemptuous, sent with a scheme and clear intention to intimidate judicial officers to desist from passing an unfavorable order.
Not only that the details which were allegedly in the possession of the Assessing Officer and which is mentioned in the assessment order were not disclosed to the assessee, but also the Assessing Officer also has not disclosed any such details in the assessment order.
It is obvious that section 2(28A) is not attracted to every payment made and that the provision can be attracted only in cases where there is debtor-creditor relationship and that payments are made in discharge of a pre-existing obligation.
The ITAT ,Delhi in the case of. ITO vs. Pandit Vijay Kant Sharma concluded that The limitation period of six months and not one year is applicable in case the penalty order is passed by the AO pursuant to confirmation of penalty by the tribunal
The tribunal in the verdict of Shailendra H. Bhatia vs. ITO concluded that Transfer of possession with the ownership rights confer beneficial ownership which is good enough to hold the asset as capital asset
In the case of M/s. Majestic Exports vs. JCIT, ITAT Chennai held that the loss in the transactions of the forex derivatives contracts will be considered to be the business loss and the same can be set off against the business income.
In the case of Commissioner of Customs v Kamalabhai, Madras High Court held that the exported goods u/s 113 can’t be confiscated but the penalties in section 114 related to “Attempt to make exports” will be applied as Attempt is a step to actual export.
It cannot be said that the land owned by the assessee was a vacant land. The character of the land has changed and it was no more plot of the land. Urban land, no doubt, is subject to the tax under the Wealth Tax Act, but, in our opinion, it will cover only the vacant land.
ITAT Chandigarh held in the case M/s Himlayan Expressway Limited vs. ITO that it is clear that the borrowed funds were not required by the assessee for business purposes. Therefore, the same funds were surplus funds in nature for that period which was utilized for making term deposits on which the assessee earned the interest.
In the present case the Hon’ble High court while deciding two vital issues held that the estoppels does not apply against a statute and Mere expansion of the Existing Units can’t be termed as a separate undertaking in order to claim deductions under section 10A.
