Indian Evidence Act ,1872
S.3 : Natural Justice – Right of cross examination – Is integral part of Natural justice though not provided under the statute – Affidavit of own is not evidence with in meaning of S. 3 of the Evidence Act , 1872 .
Indian Evidence Act ,1872
S.3 : Natural Justice – Right of cross examination – Is integral part of Natural justice though not provided under the statute – Affidavit of own is not evidence with in meaning of S. 3 of the Evidence Act , 1872 .
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 ]
Dev Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd v .Dy.CIT (Delhi ) (Trib) www.itatonline .orgS. 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 ]
Ventura Textiles Ltd v. CIT (2020) 426 ITR 478 / 315 CTR 729 /190 DTR 165/ 274 Taxman 144 ( Bom) (HC) www.itatonline .orgS. 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 ]
Ventura Textiles Ltd v. CIT (2020) (2020) 426 ITR 478 / 315 CTR 729 /190 DTR 165 / 274 Taxman 144 ( Bom) (HC) www.itatonline .orgS. 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 ]
PCIT v Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Mahasagar Securities and Richmond Securities Pvt. Ltd.) (2020) 425 ITR 658/192 DTR 88/ 315 CTR 905/ 272 Taxman 241 (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.orgLimitation 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 ]
State of Jharkhand and Ors. v. Lalita Devi Kejriwal and Ors. AIR 2018 JHARKHAND 7