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:

  • Prabhat Agarwal vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) It goes without saying that whilst the “reasons” shown to the court and the petitioner may ipso facto not be faulted, yet the file tells a different story; they were not recorded before the impugned notice was issued. In fact, the revenue played a subterfuge, in trying to cover up…
  • 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…
  • Pee Aar Securities Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) As the things stand now, genuineness of transactions is to be examined in the light of the prevailing ground realities, and that is precisely what we have done. We are of the considered view that there is nothing to establish genuineness of the share subscription transactions on the facts of…
  • Gagan Infraenergy Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi) Under section 82 of Companies Act 1956, as it was applicable for the relevant assessment year, shares in a company is a moveable property, transferrable in the manner provided by its Articles of Association. Assessee has not shown/established the manner in which alleged transfer that has been effectuated, was authorized…
  • 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…

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 […]