Home ›

Search Results For: Hiren Trivedi

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 31, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 4, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(vii)/ 145A: Interest awarded on compensation for personal disability does not have the character of "income" and cannot be taxed. CBDT requested to issue instructions to mitigate hardship of accident victims

Clearly, unless a receipt is not an income, there is no occasion for the provisions of Section 56(1) or 56(2) coming into play. Section 56 does not decide what is an income. What it holds is that if there is an income, which is not taxable under any of the heads under Section 14, i.e item A to E, it is taxable under the head ‘income from other sources’. The receipt being in the nature of income is a condition precedent for Section 56 coming into play, and not vice versa. To suggest that since an item is listed under section 56(2), even without there being anything to show that it is of income nature, it can be brought to tax is like putting the cart before the horse. The very approach of the authorities below is devoid of legally sustainable merits. The authorities below were thus completely in error in bringing the interest awarded by Hon’ble Supreme Court to tax

Read more ›

Posted on by cahiren.trivedi@gmail.com — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 28, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: A.Y 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
An order of revision passed on a non-existing entity, even though the power of attorney and the adjournment and the reply to show cause notice was signed by the erstwhile company, is invalid. The Tribunal held that the case of estoppel relied on by the department cannot be applied to instant case as assessee did not behave in a notorious way to mislead the department. Taking cognizance of the intimation filed by the assessee to the jurisdictional AO that the company is not is existence, during the assessment proceedings, of the intervening assessment years, and there being no provision in law to intimate the CIT regarding the facts of merger, the ITAT held the order to be invalid.

In the Income Tax Act, there is no provision to communicate this fact to the Commissioner. The assessee has already informed the AO. We have extracted the copy of the letter written by the assessee. We have also made reference of the assessment order vide which the AO has taken cognizance of this fact while he issued notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. In the order of the ITAT, Kolkata Bench itself has observed that legally when a company amalgamates with another, it loses its identity and no proceedings can be taken in its earlier name. The Bench had taken a different view on account of notorious facts available in that case. No such circumstances are before us. Apart from above, we are of the view that even if the assessee gave consent for taking up the proceedings under section 263 against it, that would not infuse jurisdiction in the ld.Commissioner. In other words, this adjournment application, reply to show cause notice would not infuse jurisdiction to ld.Commissioner. Jurisdiction should be by virtue of operation of the Act and not by the consent of an assessee. A perusal of section 263 would indicate that before taking any action under section 263, the ld.Commissioner has to pursue record and record would include the communication made by the assessee to the AO on 23.7.2013 intimating about the fact of amalgamation

Read more ›