Follow Us:

Judiciary

Profit on sale of Agricultural Land -Business Income or Capital Gain?

February 15, 2013 3711 Views 0 comment Print

AO has, as highlighted by the FAA, not produced any evidence that assessee was purchasing and selling plots of land in subsequent and earlier assessment years. AO is entitled to draw inferences and conclusions during assessment proceedings. But, the conclusion which adversely affect the interests of a tax-payer should be based on facts and same should be confronted to the assessee for rebuattal. FAA has given a categorical finding of fact that such a exercise was not undertaken by the AO.

Retrospective amendment to Income-tax Act has no impact on DTAA

February 15, 2013 4393 Views 0 comment Print

The retrospective clarificatory amendments (vide the Finance Act, 2012) do not seek to override the DTAA. In case of a conflict between the domestic law and the DTAA, DTAA will prevail, in terms of Section 90 of the Act.

Statement recorded u/s 132(4) without corroborative evidence could not fasten any liability

February 15, 2013 4568 Views 0 comment Print

Statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is evidence but its reliability depends upon the facts of the case and particularly surrounding circumstances. Drawing inference from the facts is a question of law. Here in this case, all the authorities below have merely reached to the conclusion of one conclusion merely on the basis of assumption resulting into fastening of the liability upon the assessee.

Best Judgment assessment after giving sufficient opportunity is valid

February 15, 2013 672 Views 0 comment Print

On facts, it is seen that by Ext.P4 notice, the petitioner was informed that there are certain points to be clarified in connection with the returns filed by them. Accordingly, they were required to attend the office of the assessing officer with documents, accounts and other evidence to support the return filed.

Uniform practice of offering discounts is not restrictive- CAT

February 15, 2013 517 Views 0 comment Print

Considering the Section and its language plainly, it is apparent that the agreement to allow concessions and benefits including allowances, discounts, rebates or credit have to have a nexus with the dealings of the respondent. The said dealings would not cover a uniform policy by the respondent to sell its product. We agree with Shri Makheeja when he says that if there is a discrimination between authorized dealers inter se, it would amount to a restrictive trade practice but in that case, it will be that the dealing of the respondent with a particular dealer was discriminatory in comparison to its dealing with another dealer. Such is not the case here.

S. 14A not applies to Share Application money as it is not an investment

February 15, 2013 2327 Views 0 comment Print

Share application money’, to the extent it is actually so, so that it only represents amount/s paid by way of application for allotment of shares, the same cannot be regarded as an investment in shares, or an asset (or asset class) yielding tax-free income, and neither is it capable of yielding any tax-free income.

TP adjustment without considering business structure of assessee not maintainable

February 15, 2013 582 Views 0 comment Print

In the present case, as we have noted earlier, it is only on account of the manufacturing activity that the activity of commissioning and installation of the equipment arises and pertinently all the aforesaid activities are negotiated and contracted for at one instance.

Winding up petition not maintainable if petitioner accepts receiving lesser amount towards full & final settlement

February 15, 2013 972 Views 0 comment Print

The acknowledgement and/or acceptance of the admitted amount, received by the petitioner towards the full and final settlement concludes the issue for the purpose of winding up petition. Therefore, having once settled the matter, the averment and/or allegations given of coercion and or undue influence just cannot be gone into the Company Petition.

Search cannot be initiated on the basis of surmises, assumptions, presumption or conjectures

February 15, 2013 2275 Views 0 comment Print

In the present case, we find that the so-called information is undisclosed and what exactly that information was, is also not known. At one place in the affidavit of Deputy Director of Income-tax, it has been mentioned that he got information that there was a likelihood of the documents belonging to the DS Group being found at the residence of the petitioner. That by itself would amount only to a surmise and conjecture and not to solid information and since the search on the premises of the petitioner was founded on this so-called information, the search would have to be held to be arbitrary. It may also be pointed out that when the search was conducted on 21.01.2011, no documents belonging to the DS Group were, in fact, found at the premises of the petitioner.

Mere non-payment of duties is not collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts

February 14, 2013 8225 Views 0 comment Print

It is settled law that for invoking the extended period of limitation duty should not have been paid, short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded because of either fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention of any provision or rules.

Search Post by Date
June 2026
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930