The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.
Madhukar Khosla vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)
S. 147: If "reasons to believe" are not based on new, "tangible materials", the reopening amounts to an impermissible review
(ii) The foundation of the AO's jurisdiction and the raison d'etre of a reassessment notice are the "reasons to believe". Now this should have a relation or a link with an objective fact, in the form of information or facts external to the materials on the record. Such external facts or material constitute the driver, or the key which enables the authority to legitimately re-open the completed assessment. In absence of this objective "trigger", the AO does not possess jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is at the next stage that the question, whether the re-opening of assessment amounts to "review" or "change of opinion" arises. In other words, if there are no "reasons to believe" based on new, "tangible materials", then the reopening amounts to an impermissible review. Here, there is nothing to show what triggered the issuance of notice of reassessment – no information or new facts which led the AO to believe that full disclosure had not been made (Kelvinator of India Ltd 320 ITR 561 (SC) and Orient Craft Ltd 354 ITR 536 (Delhi) followed, Usha International 348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB) referred)
Bellwether Microfinance Fund Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
S. 14A: For Rule 8D(2)(i) only expenditure relating to investments resulting in tax-free income can be considered. For Rule 8D(2)(iii) all investments, whether yielding tax-free income or not, have to be considered
Rule 8D(2)(i) speaks of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of "total income". In the context of s. 2(45) & s. 5, the expression 'total income' in Rule 8D(2)(i) must relate to an income which is sought to be assessed. Therefore, only expenditure directly relating to income which is earned either on receipt basis or on accrual basis and which does not form part of total income of a particular assessment year can be disallowed under clause (i) of Rule 8D(2). However, while computing disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii), the average of the total investment of the assessee as appearing in the balance sheet on the first day and last day of the year irrespective of the fact whether it has yielded income or not can be considered for the purpose of disallowance.
M/s Shree Builders vs. UOI (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
S. 234E: High Court grants ad-interim stay against operation of notices levying fee for failure to file TDS statement
Issue notice to the respondents on interim relief. Additionally issue notice to Attorney General of India as the validity of the Central enactment is put in issue.
By way of ad interim relief, we direct the respondents not to take coercive action against the petitioner with regard to the subject matter referred to in the impugned Annexures P/2 to P/5. We are inclined to grant this order ex parte keeping in mind the orders passed by other High Courts (High Court of Kerala,High Court of Karnataka, High Court of Rajasthan, Bombay High Court and High Court of Orissa).
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:
ACIT vs. Iqbal M. Chagala (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 14A & Rule 8D cannot be applied in a mechanical manner. Disallowance cannot exceed expenditure claimed as a deduction
No comments:
Post a Comment