Though s. 275(1) (c) provides that the limitation for levy of penalty shall be “after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later”, in a case where the initiation of action for imposition of penalty is not in the course of some proceedings (e.g. penalty u/s 271B for failure to get accounts audited u/s 44AB and non-filing of audit report), the first part of s. 275(1)(c) would have no application and it is only the period of limitation prescribed in the second part which would apply. Since only one period of limitation would be applicable, the expression “whichever period expires later” would have to be read as that very period of limitation.
The general proposition laid down in Sir Shadilal Sugar and General Mills Ltd 168 ITR 705 (SC) that the surrender of undisclosed income made by an assessee to buy peace did not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the amount surrendered was indeed concealed income, cannot be said to have been overruled in K.P. Madhusudhanan 251 ITR 99 (SC);
HELD in the context of s. 158BE (1) (b) which imposes a time limit for making a block assessment order with reference to the date of execution of the last of the authorizations for search u/s 132 which in turn is deemed to be the date of the conclusion of search as recorded in the last panchnama drawn that
The authorities under the Act are under an obligation to act in accordance with law. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If any assessee, under a mistake, misconceptions or on not being properly instructed is over assessed, the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected. If particular levy is not permitted under the Act, tax cannot be levied applying the doctrine of estoppel.
The transfer pricing provisions are applicable to a well defined class which meets the test of intelligible differentia. It also meets the test of rational relationship to the object i.e. to determine the real income. There is no ambiguity or absurd consequence of application of Chapter X to persons who are subject to jurisdiction of taxing authorities in India
The fiction of s. 9 is subject to the territorial nexus doctrine and income that arises out of a transaction requires to be apportioned to each of the territories. Whatever is payable by a resident to a non-resident by way of fees for services would not always come within the purview of section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. It must have sufficient territorial nexus with India so as to furnish a basis for imposition of tax
Where the assessees challenged by writ petitions the orders passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer (“TPO”) determining the Arm’s Length Price (“ALP”) in relation to “International transactions” on the grounds that the said orders were passed without granting an oral hearing and without considering the documents and information filed by the assessees and without disclosing the information and documents obtained by the TPO which were used by him in the determination of the ALP, HELD, allowing the challenge: S. 92CA (3) imposes an obligation on the TPO to accord an oral hearing to the assessee. Even otherwise, an order entailing civil and penal consequences cannot be passed without a hearing.
On the question as to whether for the purpose of availing deduction under Ch VI-A of the Act, the gross total income is required to be computed by deducting allowable depreciation even though the assessee had disclaimed the same for the purpose of regular assessment, there is a conflict of views between two Division Benches of the Court in Grasim Industries Ltd 245 ITR 677 and Scoop Industries 289 ITR 195. Accordingly, the issue has to be referred to the Full Bench.
The judgement of the Division Bench in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Delhi) holding that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied where the authority initiating the penalty proceedings had not recorded its satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof by the assessee is approved.
Where the assessee, Vodafone, a Dutch company, purchased shares of a Cayman Company (which in turn held shares of an Indian company ‘Hutch Essar’) from another foreign company (HTIL) and the AO issued a notice asking the assessee why it should not be treated as an assessee in default for failure to deduct tax at source on the capital gains and the assessee filed a writ petition to challenge the same on the ground that a transaction between two foreign companies did not attract the provisions of the Act, HELD dismissing the writ petition that: