The tax on the salary paid by the employer was a “perquisite” u/s 17(2)(iv) because it was paid in respect of the employees’ obligation and it was not by way of monetary payment to the employees concerned but for or on their account to the Income-tax department. Consequently, it is a “non-monetary” payment of a perquisite to the employee which is eligible for exemption u/s 10(10CC)

U/s 153A, the AO is empowered to assess or reassess the “total income” (which includes the disclosed & undisclosed income) of 6 years. This is a significant departure from the earlier block assessment scheme (s. 158BC) in which only the undisclosed income could be assessed. U/s 153A, there can be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six assessment years, in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax. If the assessment proceedings are pending completion when the search is initiated, they will abate making way for the AO to determine the total income of the assessee in which the undisclosed income would also be included. If the assessment proceedings have already been completed, there is no question of any abatement since no proceedings are pending & the AO will have to reopen the assessments (without having the need to follow the strict provisions or complying with the strict conditions of s. 147, 148 & 151) and determine the total income of the assessee

The belief u/s 147 that income has escaped assessment has to be the reasonable belief of the AO himself and cannot be an opinion and/or belief of some other authority. The AO cannot blindly follow the opinion of an audit authority for the purpose of arriving at a belief that income has escaped assessment. On facts, the recorded reasons are identical to the objection of the audit authority. The reasons do not rely upon any tangible material in the audit report but merely upon an opinion and the existing material already on record. This itself indicates that there was no independent application of mind by the AO before he issued the s. 148 notice (India Eastern Newspaper Society 119 ITR 996 (SC) followed)

Where the jurisdiction of an authority is challenged, neither the question of res judicata nor the rule of estoppel can be invoked so as to restrain the challenge. Neither consent nor waiver can confer jurisdiction upon the AO/ CIT where it does not exist and so no importance can be attached to the fact that the assessee, in the first round of proceedings, expressly gave up the plea against the erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by the authority. Consequently, even assuming that there was a consent/ waiver by the assessee to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Tribunal, he was still entitled to challenge it before the Tribunal (P. V. Doshi 113 ITR 22 (Guj) & other decisions followed)

The said chapter nowhere provides that method of accounting for the purpose of ascertaining net profit should be the only income from business alone and not from other sources. S. 29 provides how the income from profits and gains of business should be computed and this has to be done as provided u/s 30 to 43D. By virtue of s. 5 that total incomes of any previous years includes all income from whatever source derived. Thus for the purpose of s. 40(b)(v) read with the Explanation, there cannot be a separate method of accounting for ascertaining net profit and/or book-profit. The said section nowhere provides that the net profit as shown in the P&L A/c is not the profit computed under the head profit and gains of business. Following the principle laid down in Apollo Tyres Ltd 255 ITR 273 (SC), the AO is not entitled to recompute the P&L profits. Even if income from other sources is included in the P&L A/c, to ascertain the net profit qua book-profit for computation of remuneration of the partners the same cannot be discarded

In Rewashanker A. Kothari 283 ITR 338 (Guj) six objective tests have been laid down to distinguish between capital gains and business profits on sale of shares. From this, it is clear that where number of transactions of sale and purchase of shares takes place, the most important test is the volume, frequency, continuity and regularity of transactions of purchase and sale of the shares. However, where there is repetition and continuity, coupled with magnitude of the transaction, bearing reasonable proportion to the strength of holding, then an inference can be drawn that activity is in the nature of business. Learned counsel for the revenue from the records could not demonstrate that there were large number of transactions which had frequency, volume, continuity and regularity and fell within the tests laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. Consequently, the income earned by the assessee from trading in shares under the head long term capital gain / short term capital gain was correctly shown

The assessee, a foreign national, was an employee of Sandvik AB, Sweden. He was deputed to India and appointed Managing Director of Sandvik Asia Ltd. In addition to the salary from Sandvik Asia, he received an amount from Sandvik AB, Sweden, being the difference between the tax rates in India and Sweden. In the ROI, the assessee did not offer the amount received from Sandvik AB to tax even though it was taxable in India. On being asked by the AO, the assessee offered the same to tax and paid tax thereon for all years including the earlier and subsequent AYs. The AO levied penalty on the ground that the assessee was assisted by tax experts and so ignorance of the law was no excuse. However, the Tribunal deleted the penalty on the ground that (i) there were multiple amendments to the statutory provisions (s. 10(b)(vii)) and the concept of grossing-up embedded therein is of a technical nature and out of the scope of common knowledge of the tax payers, (ii) the possibility of mistake by even tax experts cannot be ruled out; (iii) the assessee relied on the tax experts and signed the ROI, (iv) the conduct of the assessee in paying up the taxes for all the years including those that were beyond reassessment showed his bona fides, (v) the claim of bona fide belief need not be substantiated with documentary evidence but can also be substantiated by circumstantial evidence; (vi) penalty is not an automatic consequence of addition to income; (vii) concealment implies that the person is hiding, covering up or camouflaging an income; penalty is not leviable in case where assessee is able to provide a ‘bona fide’ explanation; penalty is not leviable in cases where assessee made errors ,under bona fide beliefs. On appeal by the department to the High Court, HELD dismissing the appeal