1. The assessee appealed an order from the CIT(A) that upheld tax assessments made under reassessment by the Assessing Officer.
2. The reassessment was initiated based on an audit objection regarding a gift of Rs. 6,00,000 that was reported in the original assessment but not added to income.
3. The assessee argued the reassessment was invalid as the gift was disclosed and considered in the original assessment, so it constituted a change of opinion rather than escaped income. Jurisprudence supports the view that reassessment cannot be based on a change of opinion.
Gagan Deep Kathuria vs. ACIT, Sriganganagarsuresh ojha
This document summarizes a tax appeal case in India. It discusses:
- An assessment order by an Assessing Officer (AO) for tax year 2007-08 setting income at Rs. 74,75,000.
- The Commissioner initiated revision under section 263, setting aside the assessment on grounds it was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests.
- The taxpayer appealed, arguing the AO properly dealt with matters. The Commissioner responded supporting his findings.
- The tribunal analyzed the law on section 263 revisions. It found the AO adequately examined issues, applied mind, and reached a plausible conclusion within his powers. Thus, the assessment was not erroneous and the Commissioner improperly invoked revision powers.
Lawweb.in whether it is necessary to make enquiry us 202 of crpc in case of d...Law Web
Whether it is necessary to make enquiry U/S 202 of crpc in case of dishonour of cheque? http://www.lawweb.in/2016/04/whether-it-is-necessary-to-make-enquiry.html?
Sharing a Compilation of Case Laws on ‘Notice Under Section 148’ of Income Tax Act, 1961. The said document is available at http://expertspanel.in/?qa=blob&qa_blobid=10601143440222107929 as well as at http://lunawat.com/Uploaded_Files/Attachments/F_4740.pdf
Is the mention in assessment order a condition to stop initiation of reassess...D Murali ☆
(i) The document discusses the scope for reopening an income tax assessment under section 147 when an assessment has already been completed under section 143(3).
(ii) It summarizes a Delhi High Court ruling that established conditions for validly initiating reassessment proceedings, including that the assessing officer must form a prima facie opinion of under-assessment based on records.
(iii) It analyzes situations where reassessment would amount to a change of opinion versus situations where new information emerges, and notes a dissenting opinion that held reassessment should not be allowed if full particulars were originally provided.
1) The document is a court order from the Allahabad High Court regarding an anticipatory bail application filed by Prateek Jain who is accused in a criminal case of fraud and cheating.
2) The court notes that due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the hearing is being conducted virtually. It also discusses the provisions around anticipatory bail applications in the CrPC.
3) In its order, the court considers the arguments made by the defense and prosecution and ultimately decides to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant while imposing certain conditions.
1. The applicant/accused Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt filed applications under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking production of certain documents for his defense that were not part of the chargesheet.
2. The trial court rejected the applications, observing that the documents were not necessary and desirable for a just decision and the applications were aimed at delaying the trial.
3. In this revision application, Bhatt has challenged the rejection of his Section 91 applications, arguing that he is entitled to all documents not relied on by the prosecution as part of a fair trial. The state opposes, arguing the documents are not relevant and the applications are an abuse of process aimed at delaying trial.
The document summarizes an appeal case regarding the suspension of an employee, Ajay Kumar Choudhary. Some key points:
- Choudhary was suspended in 2011 for issuing factually incorrect land clearance certificates. His suspension has been repeatedly extended since then.
- The court discusses the right to a speedy trial and how prolonged suspension can be punitive. Suspension should not be for an indefinite period and reasons must be provided for extensions.
- While the government provided reasons for extensions, the court notes the suspension has now lasted over 3 years. The right to speedy trial applies to departmental inquiries as well.
- The court ultimately finds the suspension has lasted an unreason
Gagan Deep Kathuria vs. ACIT, Sriganganagarsuresh ojha
This document summarizes a tax appeal case in India. It discusses:
- An assessment order by an Assessing Officer (AO) for tax year 2007-08 setting income at Rs. 74,75,000.
- The Commissioner initiated revision under section 263, setting aside the assessment on grounds it was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests.
- The taxpayer appealed, arguing the AO properly dealt with matters. The Commissioner responded supporting his findings.
- The tribunal analyzed the law on section 263 revisions. It found the AO adequately examined issues, applied mind, and reached a plausible conclusion within his powers. Thus, the assessment was not erroneous and the Commissioner improperly invoked revision powers.
Lawweb.in whether it is necessary to make enquiry us 202 of crpc in case of d...Law Web
Whether it is necessary to make enquiry U/S 202 of crpc in case of dishonour of cheque? http://www.lawweb.in/2016/04/whether-it-is-necessary-to-make-enquiry.html?
Sharing a Compilation of Case Laws on ‘Notice Under Section 148’ of Income Tax Act, 1961. The said document is available at http://expertspanel.in/?qa=blob&qa_blobid=10601143440222107929 as well as at http://lunawat.com/Uploaded_Files/Attachments/F_4740.pdf
Is the mention in assessment order a condition to stop initiation of reassess...D Murali ☆
(i) The document discusses the scope for reopening an income tax assessment under section 147 when an assessment has already been completed under section 143(3).
(ii) It summarizes a Delhi High Court ruling that established conditions for validly initiating reassessment proceedings, including that the assessing officer must form a prima facie opinion of under-assessment based on records.
(iii) It analyzes situations where reassessment would amount to a change of opinion versus situations where new information emerges, and notes a dissenting opinion that held reassessment should not be allowed if full particulars were originally provided.
1) The document is a court order from the Allahabad High Court regarding an anticipatory bail application filed by Prateek Jain who is accused in a criminal case of fraud and cheating.
2) The court notes that due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the hearing is being conducted virtually. It also discusses the provisions around anticipatory bail applications in the CrPC.
3) In its order, the court considers the arguments made by the defense and prosecution and ultimately decides to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant while imposing certain conditions.
1. The applicant/accused Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt filed applications under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking production of certain documents for his defense that were not part of the chargesheet.
2. The trial court rejected the applications, observing that the documents were not necessary and desirable for a just decision and the applications were aimed at delaying the trial.
3. In this revision application, Bhatt has challenged the rejection of his Section 91 applications, arguing that he is entitled to all documents not relied on by the prosecution as part of a fair trial. The state opposes, arguing the documents are not relevant and the applications are an abuse of process aimed at delaying trial.
The document summarizes an appeal case regarding the suspension of an employee, Ajay Kumar Choudhary. Some key points:
- Choudhary was suspended in 2011 for issuing factually incorrect land clearance certificates. His suspension has been repeatedly extended since then.
- The court discusses the right to a speedy trial and how prolonged suspension can be punitive. Suspension should not be for an indefinite period and reasons must be provided for extensions.
- While the government provided reasons for extensions, the court notes the suspension has now lasted over 3 years. The right to speedy trial applies to departmental inquiries as well.
- The court ultimately finds the suspension has lasted an unreason
REOPENING U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961RanoJain
The document discusses the law and procedures related to reopening of assessments under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Some key points discussed include:
- The time limits for issuance of notice under sections 147, 148 and 149.
- Requirements regarding service of notice, reasons for reopening to be recorded before notice, approval from the competent authority.
- Issues to be considered in the reasons for reopening such as independent application of mind, non-borrowed satisfaction, mentioning of material facts.
- Exceptions under the proviso to section 147 regarding income escaping assessment after 4/16 years in certain cases.
- Procedures after notice like filing return, seeking reasons, disposal of objections.
- Time
Income-tax – Case law updates - V. K. SubramaniD Murali ☆
Income-tax – Case law updates - V. K. Subramani - Article published in Business Advisor, dated August 10, 2016 - http://www.magzter.com/IN/Shrinikethan/Business-Advisor/Business/
The Delhi High Court Full Bench decision addressed whether the reopening of a scrutiny assessment can be challenged as a "change of opinion" if the subject matter of the notice was not examined in the original assessment, even if the taxpayer made a full and true disclosure. The majority view was that reopening within four years is not barred by "change of opinion" in a "no opinion" case where the subject matter was not examined originally. One dissenting judge argued that reopening should not be allowed even within four years for "no opinion" cases unless failure to disclose was shown.
Delhi hc shifa ur rehman judgment may 7ZahidManiyar
This document is a court judgment regarding a petition filed by Shifa-ur-Rehman, President of the Alumni Association of Jamia Milia Islamia, who was arrested in connection with an FIR related to the 2020 Delhi riots. The petition challenges an order extending the period of investigation and the petitioner's detention. The court heard arguments from both sides on issues such as whether the petitioner was denied the right to consult his lawyer and whether the reasons provided for extension were sufficient. The court considered the matter in light of relevant sections of the UAPA and precedents.
The document provides details from the weekly progress report of an internship at Amity University in Uttar Pradesh from May 28th to June 1st.
Over the course of the week, the intern researched the Negotiable Instruments Act and wrote about bills of exchange and cheques. They learned about parties to negotiable instruments, endorsement, dishonor of cheques, and the Trade Unions Act of 1926. The intern observed court cases, assisted their guide with case files, and researched assigned legal topics including the definition and registration of trade unions.
A Monthly Newsletter by Takeover Team of Corporate Professionals.
Highlights of this edition:-
SAT order in the matter of Mr. Hemant Kothari, Mr. Rajesh Kothari, Mr. Dharmendra Kothari, Mrs. Ichraj Devi Kothari and Mrs. Sunita Kothari
SAT order in the matter ofMr. Vilas Valunji, Mr. Partha Debnath,
Mr. Janardhan Shriniwas Purandare and Mr. V. A. Norhi
Consent Order in the matter of M/s. Count N Denier (India) Limited
Consent Order in the matter of M/s. Macor Packaging Limited
Exemption Order in the matter of M/s. Sarla Performance Limited
Adjudicating Officer/WTM Orders
Regular Section- Automatic Exemption from Open Offer
Groundwater regulations in bangalore.docxbiometrust
I Want to dig a borewell in Bangalore, how do I go about ?
Ref:
THE KARNATAKA GROUND WATER (REGULATION AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT) ACT, 2011 and RULES, 2012
The document is a court order from the High Court of Delhi regarding a writ petition filed by Amit Kumar Shrivastava against the Central Information Commission. Some key points:
1) The petitioner filed an RTI application seeking information about a case registered against him by CBI and related departmental proceedings.
2) The CIC rejected the appeal citing an exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which allows withholding information that could impede an investigation.
3) The court dismisses the writ petition, noting the petitioner failed to disclose serious allegations and criminal proceedings against him in the petition. The court also finds the CIC order was correctly decided and Section 8(
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the Union of India against a High Court order granting bail to the respondent, who was accused of conspiring in a terrorist attack. The prosecution argued the respondent played a major role in the attack and bail should not have been granted under anti-terrorism laws. The respondent argued prolonged detention without trial violated his rights. The Supreme Court analyzed when bail can be cancelled or granted, emphasizing discretion given to higher courts. It remanded the case back to the High Court to reconsider bail based on merits while following anti-terrorism laws.
The Supreme Court of India granted bail to the appellant Sudesh Kedia who was accused of offenses related to terrorism funding. Kedia was accused of paying extortion money ("levy") to the terrorist organization Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC) in order to operate his coal transportation business smoothly. The Court found that payment of extortion money alone does not amount to terrorism funding. It also found that meeting with TPC members to pay extortion money does not by itself indicate conspiracy with the terrorist organization. The Court concluded that a prima facie case of terrorism funding offenses was not made out against Kedia based on the evidence and granted him bail.
This document discusses two bail applications that involve the same legal question regarding an accused's right to personal liberty under Article 21 if the prosecution fails to file a charge sheet within the statutory period under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It summarizes the arguments from the applicants' counsel that their right to default bail arose when the limitation period expired but was denied due to the lockdown. It also summarizes the state's arguments and examines previous court precedents on when the right to default bail arises and can be extinguished. The judge reviews reports on the remand procedures followed during the lockdown period and observes that the accused's right to personal liberty was not properly dealt with per established law.
The High Court of Kerala issued an order regarding measures to be taken during the COVID-19 lockdown period. It extended all interim court orders that were due to expire during the lockdown by one month. It also extended anticipatory bail orders for one month. The court noted that the Government of Kerala had constituted a high powered committee as directed by the Supreme Court to determine prisoners that could be released on parole or bail to reduce overcrowding in prisons.
1) The Appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in August 2018 for alleged offenses under the NDPS Act. After 180 days in custody, he applied for bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC since charges had not been filed. The Trial Court granted bail.
2) The Respondent filed an appeal in the High Court to cancel bail. The High Court allowed the appeal, canceling bail. The Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
3) The key issue is whether the Appellant was entitled to default bail after 180 days as provided in Section 167(2) of the CrPC, or if the subsequent filing of an additional complaint defeated his right to bail.
Section 34 of the Arbitrationand Conciliation Act. Scope of interference. Po...Legal
Scope of Interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Under which circumstances Court can interfere with an award passed by the arbitral tribunal.
This document summarizes proposed changes to the Indian Income Tax Act of 1961 as presented by CA. Kalyan Chakravarthy Vennety on March 3, 2010. It outlines numerous proposed amendments to sections of the tax code related to individual and corporate tax rates, deductions, exemptions, and procedures. Key changes include reductions in individual tax rates and corporate surcharge, expanded deductions for health insurance and research, and increased thresholds for tax audit requirements and tax-deducted at source.
This document is a petition filed in the Supreme Court of India by Commodore Lokesh K. Batra against an order of the Delhi High Court dated 07.01.2016. The petition raises questions of law regarding the interpretation of provisions of the Right to Information Act and the scope of powers of the Central Information Commission. It argues that the High Court erred in its interpretation that denied information to the petitioner despite it being available with the respondent. It seeks to challenge the High Court order allowing the appeal of the Registrar, Supreme Court of India against a single judge order directing disclosure of certain information to the petitioner.
20210908 sc order in case of term extension for ed chiefsabrangsabrang
The Supreme Court heard a public interest writ petition challenging the extension of tenure of the Director of Enforcement from 2 years to 3 years. The petitioner argued that the extension violated provisions of the Central Vigilance Commission Act which prescribe a minimum 2 year tenure for the Director. The Union of India argued that the extension was based on administrative exigencies and was a valid exercise of power. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the CVC Act and the arguments of both parties in detail without making a final judgment.
Assessments of search cases involve many technical complexities due to different sets of provisions governing them. Some important issues of recent origin are tried to be covered in this presentation.
Gauti Shankar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sriganganagarsuresh ojha
1) The assessee filed a miscellaneous application arguing that the ITAT order contained a mistake by not following past history and applying a gross profit rate of 6.21% from the previous year.
2) The department argued that the application was attempting an impermissible review of the ITAT order under section 254(2).
3) The ITAT dismissed the application, finding no mistake in its previous order. It held that applying the 7.19% rate from an earlier year was reasonable given similarities to the current case facts and consistent with considering past history.
REOPENING U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961RanoJain
The document discusses the law and procedures related to reopening of assessments under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Some key points discussed include:
- The time limits for issuance of notice under sections 147, 148 and 149.
- Requirements regarding service of notice, reasons for reopening to be recorded before notice, approval from the competent authority.
- Issues to be considered in the reasons for reopening such as independent application of mind, non-borrowed satisfaction, mentioning of material facts.
- Exceptions under the proviso to section 147 regarding income escaping assessment after 4/16 years in certain cases.
- Procedures after notice like filing return, seeking reasons, disposal of objections.
- Time
Income-tax – Case law updates - V. K. SubramaniD Murali ☆
Income-tax – Case law updates - V. K. Subramani - Article published in Business Advisor, dated August 10, 2016 - http://www.magzter.com/IN/Shrinikethan/Business-Advisor/Business/
The Delhi High Court Full Bench decision addressed whether the reopening of a scrutiny assessment can be challenged as a "change of opinion" if the subject matter of the notice was not examined in the original assessment, even if the taxpayer made a full and true disclosure. The majority view was that reopening within four years is not barred by "change of opinion" in a "no opinion" case where the subject matter was not examined originally. One dissenting judge argued that reopening should not be allowed even within four years for "no opinion" cases unless failure to disclose was shown.
Delhi hc shifa ur rehman judgment may 7ZahidManiyar
This document is a court judgment regarding a petition filed by Shifa-ur-Rehman, President of the Alumni Association of Jamia Milia Islamia, who was arrested in connection with an FIR related to the 2020 Delhi riots. The petition challenges an order extending the period of investigation and the petitioner's detention. The court heard arguments from both sides on issues such as whether the petitioner was denied the right to consult his lawyer and whether the reasons provided for extension were sufficient. The court considered the matter in light of relevant sections of the UAPA and precedents.
The document provides details from the weekly progress report of an internship at Amity University in Uttar Pradesh from May 28th to June 1st.
Over the course of the week, the intern researched the Negotiable Instruments Act and wrote about bills of exchange and cheques. They learned about parties to negotiable instruments, endorsement, dishonor of cheques, and the Trade Unions Act of 1926. The intern observed court cases, assisted their guide with case files, and researched assigned legal topics including the definition and registration of trade unions.
A Monthly Newsletter by Takeover Team of Corporate Professionals.
Highlights of this edition:-
SAT order in the matter of Mr. Hemant Kothari, Mr. Rajesh Kothari, Mr. Dharmendra Kothari, Mrs. Ichraj Devi Kothari and Mrs. Sunita Kothari
SAT order in the matter ofMr. Vilas Valunji, Mr. Partha Debnath,
Mr. Janardhan Shriniwas Purandare and Mr. V. A. Norhi
Consent Order in the matter of M/s. Count N Denier (India) Limited
Consent Order in the matter of M/s. Macor Packaging Limited
Exemption Order in the matter of M/s. Sarla Performance Limited
Adjudicating Officer/WTM Orders
Regular Section- Automatic Exemption from Open Offer
Groundwater regulations in bangalore.docxbiometrust
I Want to dig a borewell in Bangalore, how do I go about ?
Ref:
THE KARNATAKA GROUND WATER (REGULATION AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT) ACT, 2011 and RULES, 2012
The document is a court order from the High Court of Delhi regarding a writ petition filed by Amit Kumar Shrivastava against the Central Information Commission. Some key points:
1) The petitioner filed an RTI application seeking information about a case registered against him by CBI and related departmental proceedings.
2) The CIC rejected the appeal citing an exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which allows withholding information that could impede an investigation.
3) The court dismisses the writ petition, noting the petitioner failed to disclose serious allegations and criminal proceedings against him in the petition. The court also finds the CIC order was correctly decided and Section 8(
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by the Union of India against a High Court order granting bail to the respondent, who was accused of conspiring in a terrorist attack. The prosecution argued the respondent played a major role in the attack and bail should not have been granted under anti-terrorism laws. The respondent argued prolonged detention without trial violated his rights. The Supreme Court analyzed when bail can be cancelled or granted, emphasizing discretion given to higher courts. It remanded the case back to the High Court to reconsider bail based on merits while following anti-terrorism laws.
The Supreme Court of India granted bail to the appellant Sudesh Kedia who was accused of offenses related to terrorism funding. Kedia was accused of paying extortion money ("levy") to the terrorist organization Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC) in order to operate his coal transportation business smoothly. The Court found that payment of extortion money alone does not amount to terrorism funding. It also found that meeting with TPC members to pay extortion money does not by itself indicate conspiracy with the terrorist organization. The Court concluded that a prima facie case of terrorism funding offenses was not made out against Kedia based on the evidence and granted him bail.
This document discusses two bail applications that involve the same legal question regarding an accused's right to personal liberty under Article 21 if the prosecution fails to file a charge sheet within the statutory period under Section 167(2) of the CrPC. It summarizes the arguments from the applicants' counsel that their right to default bail arose when the limitation period expired but was denied due to the lockdown. It also summarizes the state's arguments and examines previous court precedents on when the right to default bail arises and can be extinguished. The judge reviews reports on the remand procedures followed during the lockdown period and observes that the accused's right to personal liberty was not properly dealt with per established law.
The High Court of Kerala issued an order regarding measures to be taken during the COVID-19 lockdown period. It extended all interim court orders that were due to expire during the lockdown by one month. It also extended anticipatory bail orders for one month. The court noted that the Government of Kerala had constituted a high powered committee as directed by the Supreme Court to determine prisoners that could be released on parole or bail to reduce overcrowding in prisons.
1) The Appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in August 2018 for alleged offenses under the NDPS Act. After 180 days in custody, he applied for bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC since charges had not been filed. The Trial Court granted bail.
2) The Respondent filed an appeal in the High Court to cancel bail. The High Court allowed the appeal, canceling bail. The Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
3) The key issue is whether the Appellant was entitled to default bail after 180 days as provided in Section 167(2) of the CrPC, or if the subsequent filing of an additional complaint defeated his right to bail.
Section 34 of the Arbitrationand Conciliation Act. Scope of interference. Po...Legal
Scope of Interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Under which circumstances Court can interfere with an award passed by the arbitral tribunal.
This document summarizes proposed changes to the Indian Income Tax Act of 1961 as presented by CA. Kalyan Chakravarthy Vennety on March 3, 2010. It outlines numerous proposed amendments to sections of the tax code related to individual and corporate tax rates, deductions, exemptions, and procedures. Key changes include reductions in individual tax rates and corporate surcharge, expanded deductions for health insurance and research, and increased thresholds for tax audit requirements and tax-deducted at source.
This document is a petition filed in the Supreme Court of India by Commodore Lokesh K. Batra against an order of the Delhi High Court dated 07.01.2016. The petition raises questions of law regarding the interpretation of provisions of the Right to Information Act and the scope of powers of the Central Information Commission. It argues that the High Court erred in its interpretation that denied information to the petitioner despite it being available with the respondent. It seeks to challenge the High Court order allowing the appeal of the Registrar, Supreme Court of India against a single judge order directing disclosure of certain information to the petitioner.
20210908 sc order in case of term extension for ed chiefsabrangsabrang
The Supreme Court heard a public interest writ petition challenging the extension of tenure of the Director of Enforcement from 2 years to 3 years. The petitioner argued that the extension violated provisions of the Central Vigilance Commission Act which prescribe a minimum 2 year tenure for the Director. The Union of India argued that the extension was based on administrative exigencies and was a valid exercise of power. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the CVC Act and the arguments of both parties in detail without making a final judgment.
Assessments of search cases involve many technical complexities due to different sets of provisions governing them. Some important issues of recent origin are tried to be covered in this presentation.
Gauti Shankar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sriganganagarsuresh ojha
1) The assessee filed a miscellaneous application arguing that the ITAT order contained a mistake by not following past history and applying a gross profit rate of 6.21% from the previous year.
2) The department argued that the application was attempting an impermissible review of the ITAT order under section 254(2).
3) The ITAT dismissed the application, finding no mistake in its previous order. It held that applying the 7.19% rate from an earlier year was reasonable given similarities to the current case facts and consistent with considering past history.
Gagandeep Kathuria vs. ITO Ward-1, Sriganganagarsuresh ojha
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer pursuant to an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. This was because the section 263 order itself had been set aside by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in an earlier appeal. As the section 263 order was not valid, the subsequent assessment order based on its directions was also not maintainable.
The document discusses talent management and hiring practices of in-house legal teams in the Bay Area/Silicon Valley region. It finds that cultural fit is the top priority for most companies. Soft skills and experience are valued more than academic credentials. Companies use hypothetical interview questions and skills tests to evaluate adaptability and how candidates think on their feet. Having a diversity of personalities on teams is also important to avoid having a team of clones.
The document provides information on resume samples, templates, and other career resources for administrative executive assistants. It lists 8 resume types (chronological, functional, curriculum vitae, combination, targeted, professional, new graduate, executive) along with examples. It also provides links to additional materials on resume writing, cover letters, interview preparation, questions and answers, salary negotiation, and more. The resources are aimed at helping administrative assistants with various career and job searching needs.
The ITO Ward, Bikaner vs. Shree Bhagwan Sutharsuresh ojha
(1) The revenue has appealed an order from the CIT(A) that provided partial relief to the assessee, Shri Shree Bhagwan Suthar.
(2) The CIT(A) deleted additions made under section 68 of Rs. 8,16,584, under expenses of Rs. 1,73,463, and for household expenses of Rs. 34,500.
(3) The ITAT upholds the CIT(A)'s order, finding the assessee provided adequate evidence to establish credits and expenses, and the AO made additions without evidence.
This document discusses ground sale, leasehold financing, and structured capital options for commercial real estate. It provides an example comparing the financial outcomes of a traditional refinance versus a ground lease and mezzanine financing structure. A ground sale/leasehold financing program is described that could provide the seller with 85-95% of property value while allowing them to retain full ownership and boosting returns for investors. Contact information is given for several Anika Equities representatives.
The document provides resources for creating resumes and preparing for job interviews for the role of an internet cafe assistant. It includes samples of different resume formats (chronological, functional, curriculum vitae, etc.), as well as links to materials on interview questions, thank you letters, dress codes, salary negotiation and more. The resources are intended to help internet cafe assistants develop strong applications and perform well in interviews for their roles.
The document is an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal addressing an application seeking rectification of alleged mistakes in a previous Tribunal order. It summarizes the mistakes pointed out by the assessee and agrees that several of them appear to be mistakes apparent from the record, including typographical errors and omissions. The Tribunal rectifies these mistakes by replacing or adding certain words and paragraphs in its previous order.
Aditya Traders vs. ITO Ward-1, Hanumangarhsuresh ojha
This document is a summary of a tax appeal case in India. [1] The assessee (taxpayer) appealed a decision rejecting their books of accounts and applying a 10% net profit rate. [2] The tribunal confirmed rejecting the books but allowed a deduction for interest paid to third parties that was consistent with a previous tribunal ruling. [3] The tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by modifying the order to allow the interest deduction in line with the previous ruling.
The assessee filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification of alleged mistakes in the Tribunal Order regarding additions made by the Income Tax Officer. [The Tribunal found mistakes in the earlier order and rectified them. Several additions made by the ITO were deleted as they were based on a loose paper deemed a "dumb and deaf document". Additions of investments and closing stock were removed. Only an addition related to telephone expenses was upheld. The application was allowed with several additions being removed.]
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal regarding a sanction granted for the prosecution of Ashok Kumar Aggarwal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI had investigated Aggarwal for disproportionate assets and sought sanction from the Ministry of Finance to prosecute. Aggarwal challenged the validity of the sanction. The High Court set aside the order rejecting Aggarwal's challenge and remanded the case. The Supreme Court assessed whether the sanctioning authority properly applied its mind based on the evidence presented. The Court outlined the legal principles for a valid sanction, including that the prosecution must present all relevant evidence and the authority must independently review and consider it. The Court determined the validity of the sanction could only be fully examined
The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal challenging the conviction of the appellant in a cheque bouncing case.
The Court held that the lower courts erred in denying the appellant the right to cross-examine the complainant, as the relevant statute did not permit such a denial due to failure to pay interim compensation. The Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and directed that the case be restored to allow cross-examination of the complainant, and for further proceedings. The Court also directed the appellant to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation.
Gouri Shankar Singhal vs. ITO Ward-1 Sriganganagarsuresh ojha
1) The assessee filed a miscellaneous application arguing that the ITAT order contained a mistake by not following past history and applying a gross profit rate of 6.21% from the previous year.
2) The department argued that the application was attempting an impermissible review of the ITAT order under section 254(2).
3) The ITAT dismissed the application, finding no mistake in its previous order. It held that applying the 7.19% rate from an earlier year was a reasonable decision that appropriately considered past history.
Anoopgarh K.V.Sah Samiti vs. ACIT, Sriganganagarsuresh ojha
The document is a court order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding an application for rectification of a previous order.
The key details are:
- The assessee (applicant) sought rectification of a previous Tribunal order regarding income tax assessment for the year 1995-96.
- Specifically, the assessee argued that the previous order did not address an additional legal ground raised regarding excessive penalties levied.
- The Tribunal partially allowed the application, recalling the previous order only to address the unadjudicated legal ground on penalties. It rejected attempts to re-write other aspects of the order.
In summary, the Tribunal granted a partial rectification to address a specific legal issue
- The document summarizes two cross appeals related to the taxpayer Shri Virendra Singh Shekawat for tax years 2008-09 and 2009-10.
- In the first appeal, the revenue appeals various deletions made by the CIT(A) including estimated additions to professional and consultancy income, unexplained deposits and investments, unexplained cash credits, and more.
- In the second appeal, the taxpayer appeals the partial sustaining of additions for professional income and household expenses.
- The tribunal analyzed each issue and confirmed the CIT(A)'s deletions of the revenue's estimated and unsupported additions. It also deleted the remaining additions for professional income and expenses upheld by the C
case law on Burden of proof in Negotiable Instrument Act 1881MehulMayank2
The appellate court upheld the acquittal of the respondent in the case of Ranjit Singh Sethi v. Abdul Jalil Shaikh Abdulla for the following reasons:
1. The respondent was able to provide evidence of periodic payments made to the complainant prior to the alleged date of loan, contradicting the complainant's claims.
2. The complainant failed to explain these prior transactions or provide proof of the alleged loan amount.
3. Based on the evidence and contradictions in the complainant's case, the appellate court determined the trial court was justified in finding reasonable doubt over the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The ACIT, Sriganganagar vs. Ganesh Builders, Sriganganagarsuresh ojha
This document summarizes a tax appeal case between the ACIT and M/s Ganesh Builders for the 2004-05 assessment year. The Tribunal upheld rejecting the firm's books under section 145(3) and applying a net profit rate. However, it also allowed interest paid to third parties in estimating profits. It modified its earlier order regarding this issue based on another consistent ruling. As a result, the department's appeal was partly allowed and interest paid to third parties was deemed allowable after invoking section 145(3).
Source of income of complainant has to be proved in 138 ni act casesanjsur28
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal regarding a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant had alleged that the appellant borrowed Rs. 14 lakhs in cash in 1997 and issued post-dated cheques that were dishonored. The trial court acquitted the appellant, finding that the complainant did not prove the source of the loan amount. The High Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court judgment. It found that the trial court's conclusion that the complainant did not prove a legally recoverable debt was based on proper appreciation of evidence.
The High Court of Kerala heard two writ petitions challenging the refusal of the Sub Registrar to register documents without prior documents showing title. In both cases, the petitioners claimed possessory rights over the properties. The Court allowed both petitions based on prior judgments that the Sub Registrar cannot insist on prior documents and possessory rights can be transferred. The Court directed the Sub Registrars to register the documents in both cases without insisting on prior documents.
This document discusses Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, which deals with dishonoring of cheques. It defines key terms related to cheques like bearer cheque, order cheque, etc. It outlines the 5 ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 138, which are drawing of cheque, presentation, returning unpaid, notice demanding payment, and failure to pay within 15 days of notice.
It describes the procedure for filing a complaint under this section, which involves a judicial magistrate conducting a summary trial. Guidelines from previous court cases on the summary trial procedure are also mentioned. The document discusses issues like jurisdiction, settlement during trial, and key cases related to Section 138 offenses. It provides details on the trial process
This document discusses provisions related to assessment and reassessment under the Income Tax Act of 1961. It provides an overview of sections 147-153 which deal with assessment or reassessment of income escaping assessment. It discusses the constitutional validity of reassessment provisions, legislative developments, situations that allow for assessment or reassessment under section 147, and key considerations like "reason to believe" and time limits. It also summarizes various court rulings related to the interpretation and application of these sections.
The Commissioner exercised their authority under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act to revise an assessment order from the Assessing Officer regarding an individual taxpayer. The Assessing Officer had accepted the taxpayer's return without properly applying the law around Section 14A regarding the disallowance of expenses related to exempt income.
The Commissioner found the Assessing Officer's order to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests as they failed to disallow expenses related to the taxpayer's exempt mutual fund income as required by Section 14A. The taxpayer argued the order was correctly made, but the Commissioner determined the Assessing Officer did not properly apply their mind to Section 14A during the assessment. Therefore, the Commissioner was justified in revising the order under Section
1. The assessee had two factories manufacturing goods eligible for exemption under two different notifications (No. 5/99 and No. 8/99). When filing for exemption under Notification No. 8/99 for one factory, the assessee disclosed details of the other factory but only provided clearance details for goods covered under Notification No. 8/99, not Notification No. 5/99.
2. The department argued this was an intentional omission to evade duty. The assessee argued it was a lack of understanding of the notification provisions. The tribunal found no evidence of an intention to evade, seeing it as a difference in interpretation.
3. The tribunal upheld the normal period
1. The assessee had two factories manufacturing goods eligible for exemption under two different notifications (No. 5/99 and No. 8/99). When filing for exemption under Notification No. 8/99 for one factory, the assessee disclosed details of the other factory but only provided clearance details for goods covered under Notification No. 8/99, not Notification No. 5/99.
2. The department argued this was an intentional omission to evade duty. The assessee argued it was a lack of understanding of the notification provisions. The tribunal found no evidence of an intention to evade, seeing it as a difference in interpretation.
3. The tribunal upheld the normal period
This document summarizes a court case in Sri Lanka regarding the dismissal of a civil case.
The key details are:
1) The plaintiff filed a case seeking damages from the defendant. On a trial date, the plaintiff was present but his attorney was absent. The court refused the plaintiff's request for an adjournment and dismissed the case.
2) The plaintiff argued the dismissal was contrary to law and that the judge should have allowed the case to proceed instead of dismissing it.
3) The court found that since the plaintiff had an attorney, he could not represent himself or request an adjournment without the attorney present. The dismissal is therefore treated as an ex-parte order,
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case regarding the refund of excess toll tax collected. The Cantonment Board floated tenders for collecting toll tax on commercial vehicles. Respondents 1 and 2 bid Rs. 1.02 lakh per day but later matched another bid of Rs. 1.25 lakh to collect the tax. When the higher bid petition was dismissed, the High Court ordered a refund of the excess amount to Respondents 1 and 2. The Supreme Court overturned this, finding no prejudice was caused to Respondents 1 and 2 by matching the higher bid voluntarily.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal delivered a judgment on an appeal by the tax authorities (Revenue) and a cross-appeal by the taxpayer (assessee) regarding the taxpayer's assessment for the 2006-07 tax year. In a detailed order, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax's deletion of several additions made by the Assessing Officer to the taxpayer's income. Specifically, the Tribunal found no evidence to support additions for alleged undisclosed income, notional interest income, or unexplained bank deposits. The Tribunal also denied exemption claimed by the tax authorities for long-term capital gains reinvested by the taxpayer in a residential property. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross
Similar to Smt. Shalu Sachdeva vs. The ACIT Circle, Sriganganagar 471-2014 (20)
The document discusses the recording of statements by Income Tax authorities in India. It outlines that the Income Tax Officer and those of higher rank are authorized to administer oaths and record statements. Inspectors are not authorized to record statements alone. Statements must be recorded in a language the deponent understands and should be read back and confirmed. Uncoerced statements recorded under oath, especially those under section 132(4), can be used as evidence against the deponent. However, statements taken without proper procedure or under threat may have no evidentiary value.
The ACIT, Circle-2, Bikaner vs. Gopal Ram Pema Ramsuresh ojha
This document summarizes a tax appeal case in India. [1] The appeal was filed by the assessee (taxpayer) against an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals regarding the application of a net profit rate to the assessee's accounts. [2] The Tribunal modified its prior order in a similar case to allow the deduction of interest paid to third parties when applying the net profit rate to the assessee's accounts under section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act. [3] As a result, the Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by allowing the deduction of interest paid to third parties.
SARRAF_EXPORT vs. ITO, Ward -2, Churu JODH-2012suresh ojha
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was hearing appeals from M/s. Sarraf Export for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 regarding the disallowance of a deduction claimed under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act for an amount credited as Duty Entitlement Pass Book. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's withdrawal of the deduction, which was initially allowed, under Section 154 was not valid as the issue was debatable given an amendment to Section 28 and relevant case law. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and reversed the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
1. The revenue filed a miscellaneous application seeking review of the tribunal's order from 2007 regarding tax assessments for the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 for a cooperative society.
2. The revenue argued that the cooperative society had misrepresented facts before the tribunal regarding its membership. However, the tribunal found that the revenue's application did not point to any specific errors in the 2007 order and merely cited observations from a different case.
3. As the application did not fall under the provisions allowing rectification of obvious mistakes, the tribunal dismissed the revenue's miscellaneous application.
This document summarizes a tax appeal case between Radhey Shyam Chugh and the Income Tax Officer. During a survey of the assessee's business, certain documents and records were seized. The ITO made various additions to the assessee's income based on discrepancies found in these records. The CIT(A) partially reduced some additions. In this appeal, the Tribunal allowed some of the assessee's grounds by accepting explanations for differences in interest charged and cash balances. However, it partially upheld one addition related to undisclosed income and ruled that additional income of 83,816 rupees should be added to the assessee's declared income. The assessee's appeal was therefore partly allowed.
Pushpa Devi Singla vs. The JCIT Range, Sriganganagarsuresh ojha
- The assessee, Smt. Pushpa Devi Singla, proprietor of a cotton ginning factory, declared total income of Rs. 2,57,890 for AY 2009-10 which was processed under section 143(1).
- During scrutiny, the AO found purchases of cotton amounting to Rs. 1,18,26,270 that were not supported by any vouchers and many were in cash. The assessee claimed these were direct purchases from farmers but could not produce the farmers.
- After several hearings and opportunities, the assessee failed to provide documents for the purchases. The AO conducted independent inquiries and analyses and concluded the purchases were accommodating entries to cover up unaccount
Patel Educationa & Social Welfare Trust vs. ITO Suratgarhsuresh ojha
1. The assessee-trust, Patel Education and Social Welfare Trust, filed an appeal against the orders of the CIT(A) and A.O denying exemption on its total income of Rs. 13,24,000 under sections 11 and 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2008-09.
2. While the objects of the trust were charitable in nature and it ran a B.Ed college, it was not registered under section 12AA in the relevant year. However, the ITAT found the assessee was eligible for exemption under section 10(23C) based on the charitable nature of its activities.
3. The ITAT allowed the appeal and
The document summarizes a court case regarding an appeal by a school management committee against an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax related to registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act. Key points:
- The committee had applied for registration in 2006 but the Commissioner only registered them starting in 2005, not from the original 1985 date as requested.
- The committee appealed arguing the Commissioner's order was invalid as it was passed more than 6 months after their application, and they should be registered from 1985.
- There was significant delay in the committee filing their appeal to the tribunal. They argued this was due to ignorance of the law and wrong advice.
- The tribunal considered precedents supporting con
The document discusses several miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee (Nosegay Kinder Garden and Nosegay Public School) regarding rectification of mistakes in the Tribunal's appellate order. The assessee argued that the Tribunal failed to dispose of grounds taken in the memo and consider arguments and judgments referred to. The Tribunal agreed that mistakes were apparent from the record, as it had not adjudicated on the assessee's status or considered a Supreme Court judgment. It recalled its order to rectify these mistakes and properly address the assessee's grounds regarding its status and the applicability of case law.
The document summarizes an income tax appeal tribunal case between an income tax officer and Nosegay Kinder Garden for tax years 2003-04 to 2006-07 and 2008-09. The tribunal had previously ordered that Nosegay Public School be granted tax registration retroactively to 1985. Both parties now agreed that this new evidence impacted the assessments. The tribunal thus restored all the tax appeals back to the assessing officer's file with directions to reconsider the assessments in light of the granted registration. The tribunal allowed both the revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections for statistical purposes only.
Mata Padmawati Shyamdaya Charitable Trustsuresh ojha
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was hearing two appeals filed by Mata Padmawati Shyamdaya Charitable Trust against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting the Trust's application for registration under section 12AA and approval under section 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the Trust was established for charitable purposes such as providing shelter and education to orphans. However, the Commissioner had rejected the applications based on a report stating the Trust had not yet carried out any charitable activities. The Tribunal determined the Commissioner's order was non-speaking and remitted the matter back to the Commissioner to pass a speaking order after hearing from the Trust.
Kanoi Charitable Trust vs. CIT-II, Jodhpursuresh ojha
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was hearing two appeals filed by Kanoi Charitable Trust against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) denying the Trust's application for registration under section 12A and approval under section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the CIT incorrectly refused registration solely because the Trust's object included "commercial education", without substantiating that its activities were non-charitable. Since the Trust's main object was undisputedly advancement of education, a charitable purpose, the Tribunal directed the CIT to grant it registration under section 12A. It also remanded the section 80G approval issue back to the CIT to decide afresh.
This document summarizes a court case between M/s. Kangiri Contractor and the Income-tax Officer regarding the contractor's tax assessment for the 2007-08 year. The court ruled that the contractor's case falls under section 44AD of the tax code since its receipts were less than Rs. 40,00,000. Therefore, applying a net profit rate higher than 8.15% declared by the contractor was unjustified. The court ordered the tax officer to apply the 8.15% net profit rate declared by the contractor without any separate additions for work in progress.
Kamal Kishore Jhanwar, Classic Marbles, Makrana vs ITO Ward-1, Makranasuresh ojha
1. The assessee appealed tax assessments for 2006-07 and 2007-08 regarding additions made related to unexplained bank deposits treated as unreported sales.
2. The tax authorities did not confront evidence from the Commercial Tax Officer to the assessee during the initial assessment.
3. The tribunal set aside the appellate findings and remanded the case back to the assessing officer to remake the assessments after providing opportunity for the assessee to respond to the evidence regarding the source of the deposits.
ITO Ward-1, Churu vs. Gunjan Enterprisessuresh ojha
This document summarizes an order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding an appeal by the tax department against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The tribunal upheld some additions made by the assessing officer in the taxpayer's (M/s. Gunjan Enterprises) income for assessment year 2008-09. Specifically, the tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 65,21,044 for non-deduction of tax at source on commission payments as required by section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, finding that the taxpayer was liable to deduct tax on the commission amounts paid. The tribunal also upheld restricting the disallowance of commission expenses to Rs. 1 lakh rather
- The document summarizes tax appeals by Ganesh Builders for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 regarding the disallowance of interest expenses and classification of income.
- The Commissioner initiated revision proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the assessing officer erroneously allowed a deduction for interest paid to third parties and treated interest income as business income.
- Ganesh Builders responded by arguing that the jurisprudence allows for the deduction of interest expenses and classification of interest income as made by the assessing officer. They provided examples of previous cases supporting their claims.
1. The assessee firm appealed an income tax assessment order for the 2005-06 assessment year. The assessment order made various additions to the firm's income, including a protective addition of Rs. 11 lakh introduced as capital by a partner.
2. The tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in treating the capital introduced by the partner as a cash credit to the firm. The tribunal ordered the Rs. 11 lakh addition be deleted from the firm's hands.
3. The assessment order also increased the firm's gross profit rate from 8.02% to 9% without proper logic. The tribunal found this addition to be ad hoc and baseless. It ordered this addition be deleted as
DCIT, Central Circle, BikanerAnil Kumar Tantiasuresh ojha
Relying on previous court decisions, the Tribunal also held that the CBDT's instructions applied to pending cases as well, so the department was not justified in filing the appeals when the tax effect was below the Rs. 3,00,000 limit specified in the CBDT
This document contains the order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Jaipur regarding three appeals filed by the revenue. In the order, the ITAT dismissed the appeals, finding that it had already considered the Supreme Court decision cited by the revenue (Liberty India) in its prior order for the assessee. The ITAT noted that the revenue's application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act was not a proper application for rectification. It imposed costs on the Assessing Officer for not drafting the application correctly.
Smt. Shalu Sachdeva vs. The ACIT Circle, Sriganganagar 471-2014
1. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENCH : JODHPUR
BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.
I.T.A.No. 471/Jodh/2014)
(A.Y. 2008-09)
Smt. Shalu Sachdeva,
340, Vinoba Basti,
Sriganganagar.
Vs. ACIT, Circle,
Sriganganagar.
PAN No. AMPPS 5445 J
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Suresh Ojha.
Department By : Shri Mahesh Kumar - D.R.
Date of hearing : 16/09/2014.
Date of pronouncement : 18/09/2014.
O R D E R
PER N.K. SAINI, A.M
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated
22/07/2014 of Ld. CIT(A), Bikaner. The following grounds have been
raised in this appeal:-
“1. That the order passed by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the
Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and against the law.
2. That the action taken u/s. 147/148 of the I.T. Act by the Assessing
Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and against the law.
3. That the action taken on the basis of audit objection, by the Assessing
Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and against the law.
2. 2
4. That the addition amounting to Rs. 6,00,000/- made and confirm by
the Ld. CIT(A) is illegal and against the law.”
2 Facts relating to this case, in brief, are that the assessment in this
was completed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the Act’ in short) at an income of Rs. 7,62,140/-. Later on, the
Assessing Officer initiated the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act by issuing
notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that the
return filed u/s. 139(1) of the Act may be treated as having filed in
response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee also requested
for supply of reasons recorded for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act.
The Assessing Officer supplied the reasons recorded for reopening the
assessment. The assessee challenged the reopening and submitted before
the Assessing Officer as under:-
“That the proceeding initiated u/s 147 is bad in law and the validity of the
notice u/s 148 and ions recorded by the AO prior to the issuance of the
notice are challenged on the following grounds.
a. That during the course of regular assessment proceedings complete
detail of the gift made by Smt. Sudha Sachdeva to the assessee for
Rs. 600000/- was filed vide letter dated 22.09.2010.
b. That the copy of gift deed was also filed during the assessment
proceedings.
c. That the Ld. AO while framing the assessment order duly examined
the issue of gift made to her by Smt. Sudha Sachdeva and after having
applied his mind on the issue did not made any addition for the same in the
hands of the assessee. The examination of the transaction by the Ld. AO is
3. 3
apparent from the order sheet. Mere non recording of any finding in the
assessment order cannot be considered that the AO did not applied his
mind while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3).
d. That when the assessee has furnished all the necessary details
related to the gift made to her by Smt. Sudha Sachdeva and which were
examined by the assessing officer, reopening is abuse of said power.
Further once all the details furnished by the assessee during the course of
original assessment proceeding, then it is for the Assessing Officer to
complete the assessment after looking into and examining all the material
placed before him. It has to be presumed that he has examined all facts. It
would be farfetched and wrong to state that the Assessing Officer did not
examine the question of taxability of gift received by her.
e. That Hon'ble Delhi Hight Court in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Ltd.
(2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del.) has observed that if the entire material has been
placed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer during the original
assessment and the Assessing Officer had applied his mind, then merely
because this is not expressly stated in the assessment order, is not a ground
to conclude or hold that there was no application of mind. Such cases also
fall under "change of opinion". It has been held that merely because the
Assessing Officer has not specifically referred to the material on record in
the assessment order but has examined the material and recorded in the
order sheet, does not indicate or give a ground to hold that the
Assessing Officer did not apply his mind.
f. That the power to reopen an assessment was conferred by the
legislature not with the intention to enable the assessing officer to reopen
the final decision made against the Revenue in respect of questions that
directly arose for decision in earlier proceedings. If that were not the legal
position it would result in placing an unrestricted power of review in the
hands of the assessing authorities depending on their changing moods.
Since the assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) there is no new material /
information came before the assessing officer, neither there is any change
in law. Having such situation the jurisdiction cannot be invoked u/s 148 to
reconsider the issue which was examined during the course of original
assessment proceeding.
g. That reassessment jurisdiction is meant for covering escaped income
4. 4
but where an issue was subject matter of consideration on the part of the
Assessing Officer in the original assessment; reassessment is not
permissible even within the four year time limit, because even in such a
case, reassessment is based upon a change of opinion, which is not
permissible. As otherwise, it would tantamount to review of assessment,
which is not permissible by way of reassessment. The legal position
affirmed in the following judicial decisions including decision of jurisdiction
Tribunal and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court:
i. CITv/s Krishna Textile 315 ITR 271 (All)
ii. CIT vs. Kelvinator Of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Del) stood confirmed by the
supreme court in 320 ITR 561 (SC)
iii Raj Kumar Agarwal Vs. LTO. Ward -2, Makrana. Jodhpur ITAT in ITA
No. 884/JU/2007 dated 17.04.2009 following the decision in the
case of CIT vs. Kelvinator Of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Del) (Copy of
decision of Hon'ble ITAT is enclosed herewith).
h That further it is also equally 'well settled that if a notice under
section 148 has been issued without the jurisdictional foundation under s.
147 being available to the AO, the notice and the subsequent proceedings
will be without jurisdiction and has no legs to stand.
i. That the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Gehna vs.
Union of India & Anr 267 ITR 782 (Raj.) following the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO
reported in 259 ITR at page 19 held that:
"When a notice under s. 148 is issued, the proper course of action for
the notice is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for
issuing notices. The AO is bound to furnish reasons within a
reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the notice is entitled to file
objections to issuance of notice and the AO is bound to dispose off
the same by passing a speaking order".
In light of the above submission and in the light of the binding legal
pronouncement your honor is requested to consider the objection
raised by me and the assessment proceedings may be kept in
abeyance till the disposal of the objections. It is further requested to
5. 5
your honor to drop the proceedings initiated in contravention of the
statutory provisions and legal pronouncement and as such without
jurisdiction."
3. The Assessing Officer did not find merit in the submissions of the
assessee and held that the proceedings u/s. 147/148 of the Act had
rightly been initiated and all the objections raised by the assessee were
duly met. The Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- and
assessed the income at Rs. 13,62,840/-. Against the assessment order
passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee went in appeal before the
Ld. CIT(A) and challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings by
stating that the action was taken by the Assessing Officer on the basis of
audit objection. The assessee also furnished copy of the audit objection
and stated that the action taken was illegal. Reliance was placed on the
following case laws:-
1) Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society Vs. CIT, New Delhi [119
ITR 996].
2) CIT Vs. Kalvinator of India 256 ITR 1 (Del.)
It was further stated that the action taken by the Assessing Officer
was merely a change of opinion because his predecessor accepted the gift
as genuine gift and accepted that it was not includable in the income,
hence, it was not income of the assessee. Therefore, the reassessment
6. 6
completed was liable to be quashed. Reliance was placed on the decision
of the ITAT Jodhpur Bench in the case of Raj Kumar Agarwal, Makrana Vs.
ITO, Ward-2, Makrana in I.T.A.No. 884/JU/2007.
4. The learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the
assessee was of the view that the plea taken by the assessee in respect of
the audit objection was not acceptable and that the jurisdiction to
initiate the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act for reassessment was
correctly and rightly exercised by the Assessing Officer. Reliance was
placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of
Vasant Chunnilal Patel Vs. ACIT reported at 236 ITR 832. The Ld. CIT(A)
also confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Now the
assessee is in appeal.
5 Learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made
before the authorities below and also drew our attention towards page 19
of the assessee’s paper book which is the copy of the audit objection and
submitted that the action was taken by the Assessing Officer only on the
basis of audit objection. Therefore, the reopening was not valid when
the Assessing Officer himself applied his mind while framing the original
assessment and all the documents were furnished by the assessee which
7. 7
were considered at the time of framing the original assessment. Reliance
was placed on the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal dated
17/04/2009 in I.T.A.No. 884/JU/2007 for the A.Y. 2003-04 in the case of
Raj Kumar Agarwal, Makrana Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Makrana copy of which is
placed at page Nos. 9 to 14 of the assessee’s paper book.
6 In his rival submissions, learned D.R. reiterated the observations
made by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and strongly supported
the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).
7 We have considered the submissions of both the parties and
carefully gone through the material available on record. In the present
case, it is an admitted fact that the audit party raised the objection
relating to gift of Rs. 6,00,000/- and asked the Assessing Officer to take
action which is clear from page 19 of the assessee’s paper book.
8 On a similar issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian
and Eastern Newspaper Society Vs. CIT, New Delhi reported in 119 ITR
996, has held as under:-
“The opinion of an internal audit party of the income-tax department
on a point of law cannot be regarded as ‘information’ within the
meaning of s. 147(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the purpose of reopening
8. 8
an assessment. But although an audit party does not possess the
power to pronounce on the law, it nevertheless may draw the attention
of the ITO to it. Law is one thing, and its communication another. If
the distinction between the source of the law and the communication
of the law is carefully maintained, the confusion which often results in
applying section 147(b) may be avoided. While the law may be
enacted or laid down only by a person or body with authority in that
behalf, the knowledge or awareness of the law may be communicated
by anyone. No authority is required for the purpose. That part alone
of the note of an audit party which mentions the law which escaped
the notice of the ITO constitutes ‘information’ within the meaning of s.
147(b) ; the part which embodies the opinion of the audit party in
regard to the application or interpretation of the law cannot be taken
into account by the ITO. In every case, the ITO must determine for
himself what is the effect and consequence of the law mentioned in the
audit note and whether inconsequence of the law which has now come
to his notice he can reasonably believe that income has escaped
assessment. The basis of his belief must be the law of which he has
now become aware. The opinion rendered by the audit party in regard
to the law cannot, for the purpose of such belief, add to or colour the
significance of such law. The true evaluation of the law in its bearing
on the assessment must be made directly and solely by the ITO.
It has further been held as under:-
“The opinion of the audit party on a point of law could not be regarded
as ‘information’ enabling the ITO to initiate reassessment proceedings
under s. 147(b). The ITO had, when he made the original assessment,
considered the provisions of ss. 9 and 10 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922.
Any different view taken by him afterwards on the application of those
provisions of would amount to a change of opinion on material already
considered by him.”
9 Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eicher
Ltd. reported in (2007) 294 ITR 310 has held as under:-
9. 9
“That the assessee had placed all the material before the Assessing
Officer and where there was a doubt, even that was clarified by the
assessee in its letter dated November 8, 1995. Since the facts were
before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing the original
assessment, and later a different view was taken by him or his
successor on the same facts it clearly amounted to a change of opinion.
This could not form the basis for permitting the Assessing Officer or his
successor to reopen the assessment of the assessee. If the Assessing
Officer, while passing the original assessment order, chose not to give
any finding in this regard, that could not give him or his successor in
office a reason to reopen the assessment of the assessee or to contend
that because the facts were not considered in the assessment order, a
full and true disclosure was not made.
If the entire material had been placed by the assessee before the
Assessing Officer at the time when the original assessment was made
and the Assessing Officer applied his mind to that material and
accepted the view canvassed by the assessee, then merely because he
did not express this in the assessment order, that by itself would not
give him a ground to conclude that income has escaped assessment
and, therefore, the assessee needed to be reopened.
An assessee has no control over the way an assessment order is
drafted. Generally, issues which are accepted by the Assessing Officer
do not find mention in the assessment order and only such points are
taken note of on which the assessee’s explanations are rejected and
additions/disallowances are made.”
10. In the present case also when the original assessment was framed
u/s. 143(3) of the Act all the material was available on the record and
the Assessing Officer applied his mind by making a deep scrutiny while
framing the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The reassessment
proceedings were initiated on the basis of the audit objection which
cannot form the basis for the Assessing Officer to reopen the closed
10. 10
assessment. This view is also supported by the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. Vs. ACIT
(OSD) & another reported in (2013) 355 ITR 393 wherein it has been held
as under:-
“It is only the Assessing Officer whose opinion with respect to the
income escaping assessment would be relevant for the purpose of
reopening of a closed assessment. The mere opinion of the audit party
cannot form the basis for the Assessing Officer to reopen the closed
assessment that too beyond four yours from the end of the relevant
assessment year.”
In view of the above said judicial pronouncements, we are of the
view that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the
audit party was not valid and accordingly, reassessment framed u/s. 147
read with sec. 143(3), on the basis of the aforesaid notice issued u/s. 148
of the Act is quashed.
11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
(Order Pronounced in the Court on 18th
September, 2014).
Sd/- sd/-
(HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated : 18th
September, 2014.
vr/-
Copy to:
11. 11
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The ld.CIT
4. The CIT(A)
5. The D.R
Sr. Private Secretary,
ITAT, Jodhpur.