Where the Appellate Commissioner disposed of the appeal by a non-reasoned order, held that a statutory appeal could not be disposed of in that manner. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice.”
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.
In accordance with Instruction No.96 dated 21st August, 1969 issued by the CBDT where the income determined is substantially higher than the returned income, that is, twice the latter amount or more, then the collection of tax in dispute had to be held in abeyance till the decision on the appeal is taken
Where the assessee was assessed at Delhi but a notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO in Ghaziabad and the assessee had protested the usurpation of jurisdiction from the beginning
Where the assesee was a captive company rendering software development services to its parent company and was entitled to receive actual cost + 5% and it was agreed that the Transactional Net Margin Method (“TNMM”) was the appropriate method for determining arms’ length price.
The issue of notice under s. 143 (2) I. T. Act within the time limit is mandatory for block assessment proceedings. If notice u/s 143 (2) is issued beyond the time limit, the block assessment order passed u/s 158BC is not valid.
The process of pasteurisation of milk does not amount to manufacture / processing for purposes of sections 80-I and 80-HHA as while pastuerised milk is improved in quality, it is not a commercially different product as compared to raw milk.
It is not mandatory for an asseessee to claim depreciation prior to the insertion of Explanation 5 to s. 32. Vahid Paper Converter vs. ITO 100 TTJ 532 (Ahd) (SB) distinguished.
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.
In a case where it is alleged that persons contributing share application moneys are bogus, it is quite obvious that is very difficult for the assessee-company to show the creditworthiness of strangers. If the Revenue has any doubt with regard to their ability to make the investment, their returns may be re-opened by the department.