A case where the AO specifically examines an issue and applies his mind poses no difficulty because even if the order is silent, it is a case of “change of opinion”. However, in a case where the AO does not notice or examine a particular aspect in the assessment order and does not raise any written question or query, can it be said that the doctrine of “mere change of opinion” is applicable. There can be different aspects in which this question may arise including cases where the claim may be a repetition and allowed in earlier years. To what extent the presumption u/s 114 (e) of the Evidence Act applicable is the issue. The question is whether the presumption is rebuttable and when the presumption is rebutted. Further, whether the said presumption only applies to procedural aspects or even to substantive assertions relevant to the assessment. Though in Kelvinator 256 ITR 1, the Full Bench held that s. 114 (e) of the Evidence Act would apply and the AO would be deemed to have applied his mind, s. 114 was not specifically referred to by the Supreme Court nor did it specifically approve or disapprove the observations of the Full Bench. Accordingly, the matter should be examined by a larger Bench and the issues requiring consideration are

It is not in public interest to accept such a claim when there is no evidence of rendering any service by Blue Chip & Co to the assessee. The sole object of diverting funds to Blue Chip & Co was to facilitate passing of funds as interest free loan to Vijay Mallya and Samira Mallya. The agreement between the assesee and Blue Chip was found to be a “sham transaction” by the AO & CIT (A). The Tribunal committed grave error by recording the order as if it is a consent order though the DR had categorically defended the AO & CIT (A)’s order. Also, the earlier orders of the Tribunal had been challenged before the High Court. Therefore the findings of the Tribunal are wholly erroneous, cryptic, perverse, laconic and perfunctory

U/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual cannot be disclosed unless the authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. U/s 11 (1), where the CPIO etc intends to disclose the information which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the CPIO is required to give written notice to the third party and invite him to make submissions why the information should not be disclosed. This mandatory procedure has to be followed and the Single Judge rightly directed the CIC to determine whether disclosure of the Tribunal Member’s ACR was in the larger public interest (Arvind Kejriwal vs. CPIO AIR 2010 Delhi 216 followed; Centre for Earth Sciences Studies Vs. Anson Sebastian, 2010 (2) KLT 233 not followed)

The “transfer pricing guidelines” laid down by the OECD make it clear that barring exceptional cases, the tax administration cannot disregard the actual transaction or substitute other transactions for them and the examination of a controlled transaction should ordinarily be based on the transaction as it has been actually undertaken and structured by the associated enterprises. The guidelines discourage re-structuring of legitimate business transactions except where (i) the economic substance of a transaction differs from its form and (ii) the form and substance of the transaction are the same but arrangements made in relation to the transaction, viewed in their totality, differ from those which would have been adopted by independent enterprises behaving in a commercially rational manner. The OECD guidelines should be taken as a valid input in judging the action of the TPO because, in a different form, they have been recognized in India’s tax jurisprudence. It is well settled that the revenue cannot dictate to the assessee as to how he should conduct his business and it is not for them to tell the assessee as to what expenditure the assessee can incur (Eastern Investment Ltd 20 ITR 1 (SC), Walchand & Co 65 ITR 381 (SC) followed). Even Rule 10B(1)(a) does not authorise disallowance of expenditure on the ground that it was not necessary or prudent for the assessee to have incurred the same

The assessee’s argument that a “transfer” under a scheme of arrangement u/s 391-394 of the Companies Act is not a “slump sale” for purposes of s. 50B is not acceptable. S. 50B was inserted to supercede decisions which held that a slump sale (i.e. transfer of business as a going concern) was not taxable for want of cost of acquisition. The term ‘slump sale’ is defined in s. 2(42C) to mean the “transfer” of an undertaking as a result of a “sale”. The use of the word ‘transfer’ in s. 2(42C) is significant and any type of “transfer” which is in nature of slump sale i.e. when lump sum consideration is paid without values being assigned to individual assets and liabilities is covered by s. 2(42C) and s. 50B. This is the reasonable, plausible and natural grammatical meaning which has to be given to the definition of ‘slump sale’. It is not correct to construe the word ‘slump sale’ to mean that it applies to ‘sale’ in a narrow sense and as an antithesis to the word ‘transfer’ as used in s. 2(47). The intention of the legislature was to plug in the gap and tax slump sales and not to leave them out of the tax net. The term ‘slump sale’ has been used in the enactment to describe a particular and specific type of transfers called slump sales. The use of the word ‘sale’ in the term ‘slump sale’ does not narrow down the concept of ‘transfer’ as defined and understood in s. 2(47). All transfers in the nature of ‘sales’ i.e. ‘slump sales’ are covered by s. 2 (42C)

There is merit in the contention of the assessee that the requirement of s. 151(2) could have only been fulfilled by the satisfaction of the JCIT that this is a fit case for the issuance of a notice u/s 148. S. 151(2) mandates that the satisfaction has to be of the Joint
Commissioner. That expression has a distinct meaning by virtue of the definition in s. 2(28C). The CIT is not a JCIT within the meaning of s. 2(28C). The Additional Commissioner forwarded the proposal submitted by the AO to the CIT. The approval which has been granted is not by the Addl. CIT but by the CIT. There is no statutory provision under which a power to be exercised by an officer can be exercised by a superior officer. When the statute mandates the satisfaction of a particular functionary for the exercise of a power, the satisfaction must be of that authority. Where a statute requires something to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner (SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd followed)

S. 23 (2) confers benefit “Where the property consists of a house or part of a house which (a) is in the occupation of the owner for the purposes of his own residence …“. A Hindu Undivided Family is not a fictional entity. It is nothing but a group of individuals related to each other by blood relations, or in a certain manner. A Hindu Undivided Family can be seen being a family of a group of natural persons. There is no dispute that the said family can reside in the house, which belongs to Hindu Undivided Family. A family cannot consist of artificial persons. U/s. 13 of the General Clauses Act, the words in masculine gender shall be taken to include females and words in singular shall include plural and vice versa. Therefore, the word ‘owner’ would include ‘owners’ and the words ‘his own’ would include ‘their own’. There is nothing, therefore, in the words used in s. 23(2), which excludes application of such provision to HUF, which is a group of individuals related to each other

The ROI filed pursuant to a s. 148 notice is not ‘voluntary’ & it can be readily inferred that the assessee had not furnished full particulars of his true income and so reopening became necessary. The explanation that the income was offered to buy peace is not acceptable because it is a clear case of admission of not offering true income earlier. If it had not been for the reopening, the income would have escaped assessment. When the assessee admits, by offering additional income in the s. 148 ROI, that the earlier ROI did not disclose the true income, there is no burden on the department to show concealment

None of the bankers had obtained details of the assets & liabilities of Vijay Mallya in India or abroad. He stood guarantor in respect of total borrowings of Rs. 115 crores and received commission of Rs. 1.15 crores even though his net worth was hardly Rs. 70.47 lakhs. Also, as he was a NRI, the permission of the RBI ought to have been taken which was not done. The assessee paid the MD commission “on the pretext” of paying guarantee commission and it is a “clear case” of “a ploy to divert the income of the companies under his management”. The payment was characterized as commission to overcome the RBI’s directions, the provisions of s. 309 of the Companies Act and was not a lawful payment and could not be allowed as a deduction u/s 37(1).

Explanation 10 to s. 43(1) does not cover the case of waiver of the loan. It covers only the grant of a subsidy or reimbursement by whatever name called. Though the assessee’s case may not fall under Explanation 10, the waiver of the loan amounted to the meeting of a portion of the cost of the assets under the main provision of s. 43(1) because of the treatment given by the assessee in its books of account in reducing the cost/WDV of the assets by the amount of the loans waived. The real nature of a transaction can be understood by reference to the contemporaneous act of the parties, which throws considerable light on their true intention and their understanding of the transaction. The assessee understood the receipt of the loans as having been given towards meeting a part of the cost of the assets and the waiver cannot have a different effect on such intention. PJ Chemicals Ltd 210 ITR 830 (SC), which holds, (pre Explanation 10) that a subsidy given as an incentive for industrial growth cannot be reduced from the cost of the assets under s. 43(1), does not apply to the facts.