S. 144: Best judgment assessment-Arbitrary-Honest and fair estimate.[ S.145(3) ]
Kachwala Gems v. Jt. CIT (2006) 206 CTR 585/(2007) 288 ITR 10/158 Taxman 71/196 Taxation 738/AIR 2007 SC 487 (SC)S. 144: Best judgment assessment-Arbitrary-Honest and fair estimate.[ S.145(3) ]
Kachwala Gems v. Jt. CIT (2006) 206 CTR 585/(2007) 288 ITR 10/158 Taxman 71/196 Taxation 738/AIR 2007 SC 487 (SC)S.143(3) : Assessment – Affidavit – When a statement is given in affidavit the same is proved to be correct unless proved otherwise [S.69A, High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisations) Ordinance, 1946, Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S.23 ]
Mehta Parikh & Co v. ITO (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC)/AIR 1956 SC 554S.143(3): Assessment – Principle of res-judicata- Strictly Res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings. However, where a fundamental aspect permeating through different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year [S. 11, 12 ]
Radhasaomi Satsang v. CIT (1991) 100 CTR 267/(1992) 193 ITR 321/60 Taxman 248 (SC). 143(3): Assessment-Natural justice -Denial of opportunity to cross examine witness-Failure to give the assessee the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon results in breach of principles of natural justice. It is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity. [Central Excise Act, 1944, S.3, Rules 1944, R. 173C)
Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 127 DTR 241/281 CTR 241 (SC)S.143(3): Assessment – Amalgamation – Date of Amalgamation – Specified in scheme of amalgamation and approved by the Court without specifying any other date – Date specified in scheme should be taken as transfer date. [S. 2(IB), Constitution of India, Art. 226, Companies Act 1956, S. 391, S. 394]
Marshall Sons and Co (India) v. ITO (1996) 88 Taxman 619/(1997) 223 ITR 809/138 CTR 1(SC)/2 SCC 302S. 143(2): Assessment – Notice – Failure to issue a notice u/s 143(2) renders the assessment order void even if the assessee has participated in the proceedings – Deeming fiction does not operate to save complete absence of notice. [S. 292BB]
CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325/266 Taxman 171/310 CTR 8/180 DTR 313 (SC)S. 139AA: Return of income – Quoting of Aadhar number – Legislative powers – Provision is held to be valid – Proviso to s. 139AA(2) cannot be read retrospectively as it takes away vested rights. It will only have prospective effect. [Art. 14, 19(1)(g), 21]
Binoy Viswam v. UOI (Adhaar Card Linkage with Pan) (2017) 396 ITR 66/249 Taxman 290/296 CTR 17/153 DTR 209 (SC)S. 133A: Power of survey – Statements recorded during Survey – Evidentiary value – Unexplained investments – Statement obtained under survey would not automatically bind upon the assesse and that it is not conclusive piece of evidence by itself and that section 133A does not empower any Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath and that solely on the basis of the statement given by one of the partner of the assessee-firm income is not assessable – Addition cannot be made merely on the basis of such statement. [S. 69 ]
CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 210 Taxman 248/79 DTR 184/254 CTR 228/ (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC)S.132: Search and seizure – Constitutional validity – Evidence found in illegal search – Can be used against the person from whose custody it was seized. [S. 135, Rule 112, of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; Constitution of India 1949, Art. 14 , 19]
Poran Mal v. Director of Inspection (1974) 93 ITR 505/1974 CTR 25 (SC)S. 131 : Power regarding discovery , production of evidence ,etc- Investigation and Enquiry – Summons under Customs Act – Presence of Advocate during interrogation of Petitioner – To be within visible range but beyond hearing range – Advocate must be prepared to be present for every summons made. [Customs Act, 1962 S. 108]
Vijay Sajnani v. UOI 2017 (345) ELT 323 (SC)/MANU/SC/1312/2012