S. 149, which imposes the limitation period, requires the notice to be “issued” but not “served” within the limitation period. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the AO to proceed to reassess. Service is not a condition precedent to conferment of jurisdiction but it is a condition precedent to the making of the order of assessment;
Where an assessee has his own funds as well as borrowed funds, a presumption can be made that the advances for non-business purposes have been made out of the own funds and that the borrowed funds have not been used for this purpose. Accordingly, the disallowance of the interest on the borrowed funds is not justified.
Where an assessment is made u/s 115JA of the Act, an assessee is not liable to pay interest for non-payment/shortfall of advance tax u/ss 234B and 234C of the Act. CIT v. Kwality Biscuits Ltd 284 ITR 434 (SC) followed;
A person accused of commission of an offence is not expected to prove to the hilt that confession had been obtained from him by any inducement, threat or promise by a person in authority. The burden is on the prosecution to show that the confession is voluntary in nature and not obtained as an outcome of threat, etc. if the same is to be relied upon solely for the purpose of securing a conviction. With a view to arrive at a finding as regards the voluntary nature of statement or otherwise of a confession which has since been retracted, the Court must bear in mind the attending circumstances which would include the time of retraction, the nature thereof, the manner in which such retraction has been made and other relevant factors. Law does not say that the accused has to prove that retraction of confession made by him was because of threat, coercion, etc. but the requirement is that it may appear to the court as such
No Permanent Establishment if only personnel supplied. (1) Where a Malaysian company supplied technical personnel to the assessee (a Dutch company) on terms that the personnel would remain under the control of the assessee and that the Malaysian company would …
DDIT vs. Stock Engineer Contractor (ITAT Bombay) Read More »
Where the ITAT decided the appeal against the assessee by relying on judgements that had not been cited by the Departmental Respresentative and without giving the assessee an opportunity to explain why those judgements had no application to the assessee’s case, the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal for a fresh hearing.
Where the assessee-employer allowed the employees the benefit of deduction under section 10 (5) of the Act without collecting evidence to show that its employees had actually utilized the amounts paid towards Leave Travel Concessions/Conveyance Allowance and the question arose whether the employer could be said to have wrongly allowed the deduction, HELD:
As the beneficiary of exemption under Section 10(5) is an individual employee and there is no circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) requiring the employer under Section 192 to collect and examine the supporting evidence to the Declaration to be submitted by an employees, the employer was not at fault.
In view of the assessee submitting copies of the agreements (which had not been submitted earlier before the AO or the High Court) and the law laid down in Management of Express Newspapers vs. Workers AIR 1963 SC 569 that the High Court should ordinarily not embark upon deciding questions of fact which require appreciation of evidence, the question in regard to “the jurisdictional issue” should be decided by the AO as a “preliminary issue” and the assessee shall be entitled to question the decision of the AO on that preliminary issue before the High Court. The question of law “to that extent” remains open.
Under Article 24 (4) of the India-Germany DTAA, Enterprises of India, the capital of which is wholly or partly owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by one or more residents of Germany, cannot be subjected in India to any taxation or any requirement connected therewith which is other or more burdensome than the taxation and connected requirements to which other similar enterprises of India are or may be subjected;
A non-resident whose income is liable to deduction of tax at source under s. 195 is not liable to pay advance tax u/s 209 (1)(d). Consequently, there can be no liability on such assessee u/s 234B for shortfall in advance tax.