Search Results For: failure to disclose material facts


Sonia Gandhi vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 10, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 13, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 56(2)(vii): Law explained on (i) reopening of assessment by issue of s. 148 notice at the 11th hour and based on "stale" material, (ii) nature of sanction to be accorded by the CIT u/s 151 and (iii) scope of s. 56(2)(vii) and whether difference between 'fair market value' and face value of unquoted shares can be assessed as income. All important judgements referred

When the assessees acquired the shares through allotment, the taxing event, as it were, occurred on account of the differential between what is said to be market value and what was value paid by them. As a result, it is held that the primary obligation to disclose about the acquisition of shares, was not relieved by virtue of the notification under Section 25 (6) of the (now repealed) Companies Act, 1956. It is, therefore, held that prima facie, there is no merit in this argument; it cannot be said that the effect of the exemption notification was to relieve the assessees from their obligation to disclose about the acquisition of the shares, which appears to be the taxing event (on account of the differential between the acquisition cost and the fair market value).

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 14, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 25, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Reopening of assessment to take remedial action pursuant to audit objections as per Instruction No. 9 of 2006 is not valid if AO disagrees with the objections. Instruction No. 9 cannot override the requirement in s. 147 that AO should form his own belief that income has escaped assessment

The Court holds instruction No. 9 of the CBDT dated 7th November, 2006 cannot possibly override the statutory powers to be exercised by an AO in terms of Section 147 of the Act. In other words the said instruction has to be read consistent with proviso (a) to Section 119 (1) of the Act and cannot, as was erroneously understood by the Respondent, compel the AO to issue the notice u/s 148. If the CBDT Instruction No. 9/2006 is read to the contrary, it would fall foul of Section 119 of the Act.

Global Signal Cables (I) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 17, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 24, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: The reasons must specifically indicate as to which material fact was not disclosed by the petitioner in the course of its original assessment

In the reasons supplied to the petitioner, there is no whisper, what to speak of any allegation, that the petitioner had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment and that because of this failure there

Top