S. 143(3) : Assessment – Limited scrutiny cannot be taken for complete scrutiny unless the AO forms a reasonable view that there is a possibility of under assessment of income – Approval by the PCIT in a mechanical manner is not valid – S.292BB does not save the infirmity – Order is quashed as a nullity . [ S. 292BB ]
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Business expenditure – Full particulars were declared in the return – Merely because disallowance of expense , levy of penalty is held to be not justified on merit -Not sticking of inapplicable portion in the notice -In assessment order it was clearly mentioned that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) had been initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.- Penalty cannot be quashed only on technical ground not sticking of inapplicable portion in the notice [ S.37(1), 274 ]
S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Question of law – can be entertained by the High Court on the issue of jurisdiction even if the same was not raised before the Tribunal- The question relating to non-striking off of the inapplicable portion in the s. 271(1)(c) show-cause notice goes to the root of the lis & is a jurisdictional issue . [ S.271(1) (c ) 274 ]
S. 68 : Cash credits -Commission business- Accommodation entries – Failure to explain the source of deposits in the bank – Addition cannot be made as cash credits – Estimation of commission income by the Tribunal is held go be justified . [ S.132 ]
Limitation Act, 1963
S.5: Appeal – Condonation of delay of 554 days -Mentally disturbed – Prolonged illness and hospitalization – Sufficient for condonation.
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988
S.4: Benami – Joint family property – Benami Transaction – Since the property is a joint family property and the claim only seeks to proclaim the property as joint family property and not to claim the property to be their own property, the rigor of S..4 of the Benami Act cannot have any application to the facts of the case.
Constitution of India 1949
Art .141 :Precedent – Judicial Discipline – Reference to Larger Bench in case of contradicting views. [ Central Excise Act , 1944 ]
Constitution of India 1949
Art .141 : Precedent – Ex-parte judgment without discussion is Per incurium hence not binding. [ Art .14, Banking Regulation Act 1949 , S,21A ]
Indian Registration Act, 1908
S.30 :Registration – Documents of sale or transfer of the properties must be registered at the place where the immovable property is situated. [ Bihar Amendment Act 1991 , S.30 , Transfer of Property Act ,1882, S.76 ]
S. 80-O : Royalties – Foreign enterprises – services rendered in India and not the ‘services rendered from India -Merely having a contract with a foreign enterprise and mere earning foreign exchange does not ipso facto lead to the application of S. 80-O of the Act- Without any claim for expertise capable of being used abroad rather than in India, would not be entitled to deduction- The burden is on the assessee to prove eligibility to an incentive or exemption provision and it is subject to strict interpretation – Interpretation of taxing statutes – When there is ambiguity in exemption which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue.