Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

Sahara India vs. CIT (Supreme Court) (Larger Bench)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 18, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

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.

Pradip Mehta vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 12, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

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;

Sudarshan Silks vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 12, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

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.

CIT vs. Lazor Syntex & CIT vs. Akshay Textiles Trading (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 9, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

In McDowell 154 ITR 148, the Court nowhere said that every action or inaction on the part of the tax payer which results in reduction of tax liability to which he may be subjected to in the future, is to be viewed with suspicion and be treated as a device for avoidance of tax irrespective of legitimacy or genuineness of the act.

CIT vs. Scindia HUF (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 9, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The issue of notice under s. 16 (2) W. T. Act {s. 143 (2) I. T. Act} is mandatory for reassessment proceedings. If notice u/s 16 (2) {143 (2)} is not issued, the assessment order passed u/s 17 {s. 147} is not valid.

New Delhi Auto vs. JCIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 9, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The consequences arising out of invoking Chapter XIV-B of the Act are drastic and draconian. The accounts of the assessee may be re-opened for ten years and not only a legal presumption is raised against the assessee but the burden shifts on the assessee to show that it did not have any undisclosed income. Under these circumstances the Revenue should not exercise its powers in a mechanical power but should be circumspect while taking action under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Act.Where the ‘satisfaction’ recorded by the AO u/s 158 BD was vague and lacking material particulars, held the proceedings were bad-in-law.

DCIT vs. NITS Softech (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 9, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Where a notice issued u/s 158BD was vague, showed non-application of mind on the part of the issuing authority and had been issued in a casual manner, held it did not meet the requirements of law and the resultant assessment

M/s SCM Creations vs. ACIT (Madras High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 3, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

In ACIT vs. Rogini Garments 108 ITD 49, the Chennai Special Bench of the ITAT held that in view of s. 80-IA (9), relief under s. 80-IA had to be deducted from the profits and gains before computing relief u/s

Sales Tax Practitioners vs. State (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 1, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

S. 61 of the MVAT which confers right to do audit to CAs and excludes Advocates and STPs is neither discriminatory, arbitrary or unreasonable and consequently not unconstitutional. Only CAs are competent to perform audit functions having regard to the expertise achieved as a result of their academic knowledge and practical experience.

Aatur Holdings (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 31, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

(1) Though the assessee company was the defacto owner of the shares, the dividends could not be said to have accrued to it as it was not the dejure owner of the shares. (2) If there is an accounting standard (AS-9), the same has to be accepted in the absence of any other statutory provision.

Top