Even if two views are possible, the Revisional Authority had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. It was held that the order passed by the High Court is incorrect, which decision cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has followed the judgment of this Court as the decision of the High Court is binding on the subordinate Courts. If the judgment passed by this Court is erroneous, the revenue should have challenged the said order. At any rate that cannot be a ground for invoking Section 263 of the Act in the facts of this case.
CIT Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd (Delhi High Court) A.O. having failed to record a finding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars, the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act was a complete non- starter. This finding of fact has been affirmed by the Tribunal and we find no reason to disagree with the same. A mere erroneous claim made by an assessee, though under a bonafide belief that, it was a claim which was maintainable in law, cannot with more, lead to an imposition of penalty.
State Of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Nazrul Islam (Supreme Court of India)- A person facing criminal cases cannot be considered suitable for appointment in government service unless acquitted of the charges, the Supreme Court has held. Quashing the appointment of constable SK Nazrul Islam, the apex court said, ‘Surely, the authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing constables were under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the post of constable.’
The contention of the assessee that warrant of authorization was not issued individually in the name of the assessee, thus, the case is distinguishable and the assessee was not prohibited from making any declaration of undisclosed income as the search itself conducted under section 132 was bad, does not merit acceptance.
Commissioner of Customs Vs. Aggarwal Industries Ltd. (Supreme Court) – A mere suspicion upon the correctness of the invoice produced by an importer is not sufficient to reject it as evidence of the value of imported goods. The doubt held by the officer concerned has to be based on some material evidence and is not to be formed on a mere suspicion or speculation. We may hasten to add that although strict rules of evidence do not apply to adjudication proceedings under the Act, yet the Adjudicating Authority has to examine the probative value of the documents on which reliance is sought to be placed by the revenue.
Saif Ali Khan Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) -With regard to the deduction of Society charges, we find that it has also been disallowed by the AO on the ground that since a flat amount of 30% of annual value is allowed, no other deduction is allowable. However, we find that sec. 24(a) reads as under B
Vodafone Essar South Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ITAT Delhi I.T.A. No. 3238/Del/2009 A.Y. : 2004- 05 ORDER This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 30.3.2009 pertaining to assessment year 2004-05. 2. The grounds raised read as under:- “On the facts and […]
Navine Fluorine International Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahemdabad)- The assessee was engaged in the manufacture of fluorine and other refrigerant gases. During the survey operation under section 133A it was noticed that the assessee had received payments on account of sale of scrap. The assessee company had not collected tax (TCS) at the time of receipt […]
JCIT Vs M/s Videocon Industries (ITAT Mumbai) – It is seen on perusal of the assessment records of assessment year 1999-2000 that the loss on sale of shares on SMS Pharmaceuticals has been declared as long term capital loss. This shows that the transaction in respect of the purchase and sale of shares of SMS Pharmaceuticals are nothing but transfer of capital asset and not part of the business of the assessee company. This fact is evident from the assessment records of previous assessment years wherein the shares have been shown as investments. In view of the above, the claim of the assessee company that the said loss of Rs.95,00,000/- should be allowed as a business loss and thereby writing it off as bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act cannot be allowable as the conditions laid down by section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not satisfied by the assessee company .
S K Bothra & Sons, HUF Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court) – When the assessee has discharged the initial burden to prove the loan transaction, the addition made by the AO based on the report of the Inspector without giving an opportunity to the assessee to explain the alleged information, is not correct.- In our view, equity and justice demand that the full text of the information given by the Inspector to the Assessing Officer which is the basis of the conclusion of the assessment should be made known to the assessee before the same is used against him so that the genuineness of the said information can be rebutted by the appellant-assessee or at least, the assessee can get an opportunity to explain the said information.
