S. 261 : Appeal – Supreme Court -Limitation : Condonation of delay – Strictures -Departmental delay of 524 days – Unsatisfactory explanation – Internal procedural delays such as multiple scrutiny reports, repeated vetting and lack of timely direction for filing SLP held to be avoidable – However, considering that other matters on similar issue were already entertained, Supreme Court condoned the delay as a special case and directed tagging with Civil Appeal No. 1294 of 2015 [ Art. 136]
56: Income from Other Sources – Stamp duty valuation – Difference between agreement date and registration date – Allotment letter treated as “agreement” – Part consideration paid through banking channel before agreement – Stamp duty valuation to be adopted as on date of allotment – Addition deleted.[ S. 50C ,56(2)(vii)( b).]
S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Faceless regime – Notice issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after 01.04.2022-Held to be valid – The Court clarified that paragraph 3 of the Scheme requires only automated allocation, not faceless issuance – Writ petitions dismissed – Not followed Hexaware Technologies Limited v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225/ 464 ITR 430 / 338 CTR 536 (Bom)(HC ) . [S. 119 120, 124, 144B, 147, 148 148A, 151A, Art . 226 ]
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]