Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Valvoline Cummins vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)

Valvoline Cummins vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 1, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:


Where the returned income was Rs. 7.25 crores but the assessed income was Rs. 58.68 crores and the assessee had filed a stay application before the Addl. CIT but the same was disposed of by the DCIT, a junior functionary, held:

(i) In accordance with Instruction No.96 dated 21st August, 1969 issued by the CBDT where the income determined is substantially higher than the returned income, that is, twice the latter amount or more, then the collection of tax in dispute had to be held in abeyance till the decision on the appeal is taken;
(ii) The Assessee would, in normal course, be entitled to an absolute stay of the demand on the basis of the above Instruction though it voluntarily agreed to pay 15% of the demand;
(iii) As the Addl. CIT was the AO, he had the power and duty to deal with a stay petition u/s 220 (6). He could not abdicate or relinquish the statutory power nor could he suo motu divest himself of this power and confer it upon a junior functionary such as the DCIT;
(iv) The fact that the assessee had acquiesced in the power of the DCIT could not confer jurisdiction upon the DCIT;
(v) In view of the unreasonable stance of the department, it was directed to pay costs of Rs. 15,000.
See Also: Legrand vs. UOI (Bom) and Mahindra & Mahindra vs. AO (Bom).

Related Posts:

  • New Delhi Television Ltd vs. DCIT (Supreme Court) In our view the assessee disclosed all the primary facts necessary for assessment of its case to the assessing officer. What the revenue urges is that the assessee did not make a full and true disclosure of certain other facts. We are of the view that the assessee had disclosed…
  • JDC Traders Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) If we accept the argument of the learned DR that u/s 154 of the Act, ld. AO is empowered to deal with the escapement of income in respect of which the reasons were not recorded even after the assessment reopened under section 147 of the Act is completed, it would…
  • Deepak Nagar vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) These facts clearly demonstrate that the assessee is a habitual investor and being a qualified professional [Chartered Accountant], is well aware of market trends of shares in the stock market. The entire assessment has been framed by the Assessing Officer without conducting any enquiry from the relevant parties or independent…
  • Radhika Roy / Prannoy Roy vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Where an individual or after 1 st day of October 2009, receives any property other than immovable property for a consideration, which is less than the aggregate fair market value of the property by an amount exceeding INR 50,000/- , the aggregate of fair market value of such property as…
  • Sajan Kumar Jain vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In our considered opinion, once a valid return of income was available on record, which was already processed issuing notice u/s 142(1) of the Act asking the assessee to furnish fresh notice in itself is invalid making subsequently proceedings void ab initio.
  • Kapil Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) In J. R. Suhramanya Bhat (supra). Karnataka High Court noticed language of Section 54 which stipulated that the assessee should within one year from the dale of transfer purchase, or within a period of two years thereafter, construct a residential house to avail of concession under the said Section. The…

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court) 

    Receipt for agreeing to refrain from carrying on a competing business under a restrictive covenant is a capital receipt and is not chargeable to tax either as a revenue receipt or as a capital gain as ss. 28(va) and 55(2)(a) … CIT vs. Narendra Desai (Bombay High Court)…
  2. Krishna Lifestyle vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) 

    (i) While the arrears of the State have priority over private debts owed to ordinary or unsecured creditors, this priority does not extend over secured creditors (subject to statutory exception). The fact that the tax arrears are recoverable as arrears … Krishna Lifestyle vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)…
  3. Hasan Ali Khan vs. ITSC (Bombay High Court) 

    (i) The Chairman of the Settlement Commission has the power to constitute a Special Bench and he is not required to give reasons or produce the material in support thereof. (ii) It is not as if the moment an application … Hasan Ali Khan vs. ITSC (Bombay High…
  4. Sales Tax Practitioners vs. State (Bombay High Court) 

    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…
  5. Emptee Poly-Yarn (Bombay High Court) 

    Meaning of the terms “manufacture”, “production” and “process”. The process applied to POY either for the purpose of texturising or twisting constitutes manufacture as the article produced is recognised in the trade as distinct commodity pursuant to the process it undergoes and which amounts to manufacture. Read more ›
0 comments on “Valvoline Cummins vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)”
1 Pings/Trackbacks for "Valvoline Cummins vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)"
  1. Soul vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) | archives says:
    December 5, 2008 at 12:40 pm

    […] Also: Valvoline Cummins (Del HC). Posted in All Judgements, High Court […]