Five Latest Judgements Of The High Court And ITAT On Important Issues

Nivi Trading Limited vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

S. 147: Reopening (even of s. 143(1) assessment) on the ground that a specific aspect requires verification is not permissible

In the present case, the AO does not state that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. All that the Revenue desires is verification of certain details and pertaining to the gift. That is not founded on the belief that any income which is chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and hence, such verification is necessary. That belief is not recorded and which alone would enable the Assessing Officer to proceed

 

Trans Polyurethane Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 271(1)(c): Mistake in claiming deduction of interest expenditure despite s. 43B attracts penalty

The assessee is a regular assessee, well serviced by tax and audit professionals. The latter issuing a disclaimer for being unable to state the amount disallowable u/s.43B in the absence of the relevant information, defeats its case of it being an inadvertent mistake. On what basis, then, one may ask, was the deduction claimed?

 

DCIT vs. Aanjaneya Life Care Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 221(1): Penalty cannot be levied for non-payment of S. A tax if the assessee has financial hardship

The assessee claimed that it was having meagre cash and current balances and was in financial constraints during the year under consideration. If there is financial hardship to the assessee it has to be considered as sufficient cause in which event penalty cannot be levied

 

Employees’ Provident Fund Organization vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

S. 253(1)(a): An appeal can be filed before the Tribunal against an order of the CIT(A) rejecting the stay application

The term ‘order’ has not been defined under the Act. It is judicially understood that the word ‘order’ is a noun and has been held equivalent to or synonymous with the word ‘decision’. Therefore, having held that the CIT(A) has passed the order u/s 250 of the Act, in our considered opinion, the appeal is clearly maintainable under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 253 of the Act

 

ITO vs. M/s. Paras Builders (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 253(2): There is no judicial impropriety in the CIT filing an appeal before the Tribunal against his own order as CIT(A) deciding the appeal in favour of the assessee

The plea of the assessee that there was judicial impropriety in the case was not established because the present Commissioner of Income Tax Administration as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had passed the order and decided the issues on the basis of various case laws. However, when acting as Commissioner of Income Tax Administration and in view of the facts that there was no legal precedent by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court on the said issue, directed the Assessing Officer to file appeal against the impugned order. It is not a case where the present person was setting in judgment of the earlier order passed by him but was acting in the capacity of administrator wherein the issues were put before higher forum to adjudicate the same