S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure – Bogus Purchases – Accommodation entries Assessing Officer disallowed 100% purchases as bogus purchases – CIT( A) restricted the disallowance to 8% of purchases against 100% of disallowed by the Assessing Officer – on appeal by Revenue the Tribunal affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and confirmed 100% of bogus purchases . [ S. 37, 68, 143(3), 147, 148 ]
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
Benami transactions-Change of law Order passed by Tribunal allowing assessees’ appeals following Supreme Court ruling to effect that amendments brought in 2016 did not have retrospective effect Pendency of review petition before Supreme Court not ground to disturb order of Tribunal-But Department given liberty to proceed based on outcome of review petition filed before Supreme Court.[Art. 226]
Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020. (2020) 422 ITR (St.) 121)
Pendency of appeal- Appeal decided by Tribunal- Delay in serving order on assessee-Appeal cannot be treated as pending-Rejection of assessee’s declaration Justified [Art. 226]
Income Declaration Scheme 2016 ((2016) 384 ITR (St.) 87)/ (2016) 384 ITR (St.) 1)
S. 183: Declaration under Scheme-Assessee fulfilling Amounts paid as advance tax and on condition prescribed by Scheme Tax payable by assessee self-assessment to be deducted-Directed to give credit of advance tax and self assessment tax. [Art. 226
Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.
S. 28A : Securities, Markets and Exchanges-Offences and Penalties – Recovery of tax – Attachment and sale of property – Auction sale-Recovery of penalty by modes such as attachment and sale of properties Auction sale of property by Securities and Exchange Board of India for recovery of penalty-Failure by successful bidder to pay balance of consideration Whether forfeiture of entire earnest money deposit justified Provisions under income-tax law to apply with necessary modifications-Automatic forfeiture of entire deposit not contemplated Provisions giving Tax Recovery Officer discretion to order forfeiture of entire deposit or limit it to extent of actual loss incurred by authorities discretion Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 – Attachment of property-Recovery of Tax/Arrears of Tax/Crown Debt/Debt owed to State- Has discretion to order forfeiture of entire deposit or limit it to extent of actual loss incurred by authorities discretion- Recovery of penalty-Auction sale of property-Failure by successful bidder co pay balance of consideration-Default In payment by purchaser within period specified Provision for forfeiture of deposit to secured creditor and resale of property with defaulting purchaser forfeiting all claims to property or Co any part of sum for which it may be subsequently sold No discretion with authorities as under income-tax law to quantify actual loss or damages incurred-Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 B 9/5. [Income Tax Act, 1961-Sch. II, R. 58-Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Or. 21 R. 86, Indian Contract Act, 1872, S.73, 74]
S.11: Expenditure-tax-Reassessment -No limitation was prescribed – Not barred by limitation- Appeal-High Court- Court cannot reappreciate evidence to record a different finding of fact even if another view possible on basis of material on record [S. 8, 9, 11(1)(a), 11(1)b), ITAct, 260A]
Expenditure Tax Act, 1987.
S. 11:Reassessment- Expenditure-tax-Reassessment -No limitation was prescribed – Not barred by limitation- Appeal-High Court- Court cannot reappreciate evidence to record a different finding of fact even if another view possible on basis of material on record- SLP dismissed.[S. 8, 9, 11(1)(a), 11(1)b), Art. 136]
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment-Settlement commission- Burden of proof- Burden on revenue to prove concealment of income-Order of Settlement Commission set aside.[S. 50C, 245D, 271(1) explanation (c), Art. 226]
S. 269UC : Purchase by Central Government of immoveable properties – Restrictions on transfer-Failure by Government to deposit apparent consideration within stipulated time pursuant to order of Appropriate Authority for compulsory purchase-Parties terminating agreement and vendors selling property to new purchaser Suit filed by new purchaser for declaration that order for compulsory purchase stood abrogated and all rights in property vested in its favour-Abrogation of order taking place by operation of law consequent upon failure to deposit consideration within time frame as stipulated in section 269UG-No question of giving a further declaration that order cancelled or set aside-Not a case where order for compulsory purchase being “called in question” by filing suit if decreed will not have effect of setting aside or modifying order of Appropriate Authority-Suit neither barred under provisions of section 269UN or section 293- Order of single judge holding suit barred set aside and suit restored-Called in question”-“Abrogate” [S. 269UD, 269UE(1), 269UF, 269UG, 269UH, 269UN, 293, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 9.]
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Amalgamation- Depreciation-Demerger-Goodwill-Difference between net assets and shares to be issued credited as goodwill and depreciation allowed – Scrutiny assessment- Order of Tribunal setting aside revision order was affirmed.[S. 32(1), 43(6), Expln. 3(b), 143(3), 260A]