Where the High Court dismissed the appeals filed against a PSU on the ground that an application for permission of the COD had not been obtained within the period of 30 days as laid down in ONGC’s case, held that there was actually no rigid time frame indicated by the Supreme Court. The emphasis on one month’s time was to show urgency needed.
The amount of share application money received by a Company from alleged bogus shareholders cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under S. 68 of I. T. Act for the simple reason that if the names of the alleged bogus shareholders are given to the AO, then the Department is free to proceed to re-open their individual assessments in accordance with law.
Once the assessee has moved the rectification application within four years from the date of the appeal order, the Tribunal cannot reject that application on the ground that four years have lapsed, which includes the period of pendency of the application before the Tribunal.The Tribunal is bound to decide the application on merits and cannot dismiss the same on the ground of limitation.
It is an established principle of law that in a third party auction, the purchaser’s interest in the auctioned property continues to be protected notwithstanding that the underlying decree is subsequently set aside or otherwise.
Transportation cost incurred by a foreign assessee in providing transportation facility for movement of offshore employees from their residence in home country to the place of work and back is liable to Fringe Benefit Tax u/s 115WA.
Jurisdiction u/s S. 143(1)(a) and 143 (1A) is confined to making “prima facie” adjustments. When there are conflicting judgments on interpretation of Section 80-O, it is not permissible to make “prima facie” adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) and consequently additional tax u/s 143(1A) is not payable.
The AO has no jurisdiction u/s 115J of the Act to go behind the Profit & loss account of the assessee and to make adjustments therein beyond what is expressly provided in s. 115J. An assessee is entitled to provide for depreciation in its books at rates which are higher than the rates specified in Schedule XIV to the Companies Act.
Before dubbing the accounts to be complex or difficult to understand, there has to be a genuine and honest attempt on the part of the AO to understand accounts maintained by the assessee; appreciate the entries made therein and in the event of any doubt, seek explanation from the assessee. The opinion must be based on objective criteria and not on the basis of subjective satisfaction. Recourse to s. 142 (2A) cannot be had by the AO merely to shift his responsibility of scrutinizing the accounts of an assessee and pass on the buck to the special auditor.
U/s 6 (6), a person will become an ordinarily resident only if (a) he has been residing in nine out of ten preceding years; and (b) he has been in India for at least 730 days in the previous seven years;
The Tribunal deleted penalty on the finding that the assessee had been induced to offer undisclosed income on the assurance that penalty would not be levied. The frame of the question raised by the department in its appeal to the High Court did not challenge the perversity of the finding. However, the High Court still held that the finding was perverse. Held: the Tribunal is the final fact- finding authority and its decision on the facts can be gone into by the High Court only if a question has been referred to it which says that the finding of the Tribunal on facts is perverse, in the sense that it is such as could not reasonably have been arrived at on the material placed before the Tribunal. In the absence of such a question having been claimed, the High Court was obliged to accept the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal and then proceed to decide the question of law referred to it.