S. 2(14) : Capital asset–Capital gains-Land acquisition–Compensation received from land acquisition under National High Ways Act, 1956 is exempt from tax-Matter remanded to the AO to decide the matter after taking in to consideration issued by CBDT [National High Ways Act, 1956, RFCTLARR Act, 2013]
Prohibition Of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988,
S.2(9) (c ) : Benami transaction — Notice and attachment- High demonitised notes – Preliminary objection not raised in reply to show-cause notice — No statutory provision for passing of separate order against objections raised — Provisions not pari materia with reassessment under Income-tax law — Objection of assessee is unsustainable. [S. 19(1)(g) ,24(2), 24(3) , ITAct, S.147 148,153A ]
S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties- Estimate of cost of construction-Income from undisclosed sources – Order passed confirming the addition without assigning the reasons is held to be not justified .[ S.69 ]
S. 153 : Assessment – Reassessment – Limitation –Revision- When an is set aside or cancelled -Fresh assessment can be made only before expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order u/s 263 was passed – Order giving effect-Though no limitation is prescribed the order should be passed within reasonable time – Delay of eight and half years is held to be not valid in law .[ S.263 ]
S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Change of opinion- No new material-Reassessment is held to be bad in law . [ S.80IA(4 ]
S. 3 : Benami Transactions-Part payment of consideration or payment of stamp duty by person other than purchaser-Hindu Undivided Family-Purchases of properties in favour of wife much prior to sale of ancestral property-Properties could not be said to have been purchased in wife’s name from funds received by selling ancestral properties-Act cannot be applied retrospectively.
S. 269SS : Penalty-Mode Of receipt of loan and deposits-Not offering reasonable cause–levy of penalty is held to be justified. [S.271D, 273B]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Capital gains-Investment in two flats-Combined in to one residential unit–Possible view–Revision is held to be not valid. [S.45, 54F, 133A]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–AO examined the claim in original assessment proceedings–Rule of consistency is applied–Revision is held to be not valid. [S.143(3), 80HHC]