Thursday, 26 April 2012

Q whether the s. 127(2) transfer order is invalid for want of reasons referred to Full Bench

Millenniun Houseware vs. CIT (Gujarat High Court)


 
The CIT, Valsad, passed an order u/s 127(2) centralizing the assessee’s case from Vapi to Surat “to facilitate coordinated and effective investigation”. The assessee challenged the order on the ground that as no reasons were given in the s. 127(2) order (though given in the affidavit-in-reply), the s. 127(2) order had to be struck down as per Ajanta Industries vs. CBDT 102 ITR 281 (SC). The department relied on Arti Ship Breaking vs. DIT 244 ITR 333 (Guj) where it was held that Ajanta Industries was no longer good law and reasons were not required to be stated in the order. HELD by the Court:

No comments:

Share sale by Passive Shareholder taxable as Long-Term Capital Gains and not Business Income irrespective of non-compete clause in the SPA

  As per Income Tax Laws, any sum received or receivable in cash or kind under an agreement for not carrying business or profession is treat...