The interrogation continued till 3.30 a.m. on the second night of search and seizure as per the department’s record. The search and seizure manual does not prescribe any time limit for search and survey operation and the same may continue for days if required, but it has to be in keeping with the basic human rights and dignity of an individual. The purpose of the Act is to give effect to the process of execution of actions of executive and bureaucratic machinery in line of accepted standard of basic human rights which are internationally recognized. The laws, and approach to law for its execution must confirm to the charter of human values and dignity. Even a person accused of a serious offence has to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours minus the time taken in reaching the Court. There is no possible justification to continue interrogation and keep the assessee awake till 3 a.m. on the second night of search and interrogations. No reason has been assigned as to why the interrogations could not have been deferred till the morning of the next day. The officials could have continued with the interrogation on the next day in the morning after allowing the assessee to retire at an appropriate time in the night. Sleep deprivation method of interrogation amounts to inhuman treatment and violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. No exception to Article 3 can be made even in the event of Public Emergency threatening the life of the Nation. Accordingly, the department is guilty of violating human rights even though the operations were conducted in best interest of revenue and good faith (Ireland vs. UK (1978) ECHR 1, Kalashnikov vs. Russia (2002) ECHR 596 & Salmouni vs. France (2000) 29 EHRR 403 followed; Rajendran Chingaravelu 2010(1) SCC 45 distinguished)

U/s 226 (6) the AO has the discretion not to treat the assessee as being in default during the pendency of the appeal. The AO has to normally use this discretion in favour of assessee particularly when high pitched assessments are made and the demand of tax is several times the declared tax liability in the spirit of Instruction No.95 dated 21.08.1969 and grant stay. The mandate of Parliament in s. 220 (6) is that the AO should normally wait for the fate of the appeal filed by the assessee. Therefore, the discretion conferred by s. 220(6) of not treating the assessee in default should ordinarily be exercised in favour of assessee unless there are overriding and overwhelming reasons to reject the assessee’s stay application. The application cannot normally be rejected by merely describing it to be against the interest of Revenue if recovery is not made, if tax demanded is twice or more of the declared tax liability. The very purpose of filing of appeal, which provides an effective remedy to the assessee, is likely to be frustrated, if such a discretion was always to be exercised in favour of revenue rather than assessee

The service of notice u/s 143(2) within the statutory time limit is mandatory and is not an inconsequential procedural requirement. Omission to issue notice u/s 143(2) is not curable and the requirement cannot be dispensed with. S. 143(2) is applicable to proceedings u/s 147 & 148. While the Proviso to s. 148 protects and grants liberty to the Revenue to serve notice u/s 143(2) before passing of the assessment order for returns furnished on or before 1.10.2005, in respect of returns filed pursuant to notice u/s 148 after 1.10.2005, it is mandatory to serve notice u/s 143(2) within the stipulated time limit (Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC) referred)

Though, prima facie, the Rule appears to be a correct notification supposedly issued in public interest in line with the rules and practice clamping ban on the legal practice by the retired judges of High Court in the courts where they remain posted as permanent judge and the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court, however, it appears to be offensive in two respects; namely, that the retired members have been completely barred from practice before the Tribunal, and secondly, that the aforesaid rule 13E has been interpreted to apply retrospectively in the judgment rendered in the case of Concept Creations vs. ACIT 120 ITD 19 (Delhi) (Special Bench) by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, beyond its pale of competence as it has the jurisdiction to decide only the matters relating to tax appeals as contained in the Income Tax Act vide Sections 253 and 254 thereof

The fact that by virtue of the Explanation to s. 80IA added with retrospective effect from 1.4.2000, income derived from the works contract would not qualify for deduction u/s 80IA does not mean that an assessment can be reopened beyond 4 years without there being any failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts (Sadbhav Engineering 333 ITR 483(Guj) followed)

S. 80IB(10) allows deduction to an undertaking engaged in the business of developing and constructing housing projects. There is no requirement that the land must be owned by the assessee seeking the deduction. Under the development agreement, the assessee had undertaken the development of housing project at its own risk and cost. The land owner had accepted the full price of the land and had no responsibility. The entire risk of investment and expenditure was that of the assessee. Resultantly, profit and loss also accrued to the assessee alone. The assessee had total and complete control over the land and could put the land to the agreed use. It had full authority and responsibility to develop the housing project by not only putting up the construction but by carrying out various other activities including enrolling members, accepting members, carrying out modifications engaging professional agencies and so on. The risk element was entirely that of the assessee. The assessee was a “developer” in common parlance as well as legal parlance and could not be regarded as only a “works contractor”. The Explanation to s. 80IB inserted w.r.e.f 1.4.2001 has no application as the project is not a “works contract”. Further, as the assessee was, in part performance of the agreement to sell the land, given possession and had also carried out the construction work for development of the housing project, it had to be deemed to be the “owner” u/s 2(47)(v) r.w.s. 53A of the TOP Act even though formal title had not passed (Faqir Chand Gulati vs. Uppal Agencies (2008) 10 SCC 345 distinguished)

The AO has jurisdiction to make a reference to the TPO only if there is an “international transaction”. Though the question as to whether there is an “international transaction” may be disputed, the AO is not obliged to grant hearing to the assessee, invite and consider the objections with respect to the question whether there was an “international transaction” before making a reference to the TPO. The AO’s opinion has to be based on available material and would have “ad-hoc” finality. The power cannot be exercised arbitrarily or at whims or caprice. S. 92C (1) has inbuilt safeguards to ensure that the reference is made only in appropriate cases with approval of the higher authority. At the stage of framing the assessment in terms of the TPO’s report the AO is entitled (despite the amendment to s. 92CA(4)) to consider the objections of the assessee that in fact there had been no “international transaction”. If the assessee succeeds in establishing such fact, the AO would have to drop the entire transfer pricing proceedings. Even the DRP has the power to consider whether there was an international transaction or not and it can annul the computations proposed on the basis of the TPO’s order. However, the TPO has no jurisdiction to decide the validity of any such reference and his task is only to determine the ALP. On facts, as the parties were closely related and the assessee had accepted in the preceding year that the transactions were subject to transfer pricing, the AO’s reference could not be interfered in writ proceedings

The income received by the assessee, though not assessable as “fees for technical services” under the DTAA, is “fees for technical services” under Explanation 2 to s. 9(1)(vii) because it is for providing technical information and does not arise from a “project”. Consequently, s. 44D, which provides that no deduction shall be admissible while computing income of the nature of “fees for technical services” shall apply

S. 220(2) provides for levy of interest if the demand is not paid within 30 days of the service of notice u/s 156. A distinction has to be drawn between a case where the assessee pays up the entire demand raised pursuant to the assessment order within the period specified in s. 156, wins in appeal and the amount is refunded and subsequently loses in further appeal and has to repay the taxes. In such a case, as the assessee is not in default in the first instance, no interest u/s 220(2) is payable for the period when the favourable verdict of the appellate authority was operative . However, if the assessee has not paid up the entire tax within the specified period, it is liable to pay interest u/s 220(2) from that date on the unpaid amount and any variation in the amount of the demand favourable to the assessee which was directed by any of the appellate authorities in the interregnum has no effect on the liability of the assessee to pay the interest. On facts, as the assessee had paid only a part of the demand at the first stage, it was held liable to pay interest for the entire period including the period when the favourable CIT(A)’s order was operative though no interest was payable on the s. 244A interest (Vikrant Tyres Ltd 247 ITR 821(SC), S.M.S. Schloemann Siemag 250 ITR 97 (AP)(FB) distinguished; New United Construction Co 270 ITR 224 (Jhar) not followed)

S. 152(2) requires the sanction to be accorded by the Joint/Additional CIT. The AO sought the sanction of the CIT. Though the file was routed through the Addl. CIT, the latter only made an endorsement “CIT may kindly accord sanction”. This showed that the Addl. CIT did not apply his mind or gave any sanction. Instead, he requested the CIT to accord approval. This is not an irregularity curable u/s 292B