Important Income Tax Case law update

K Raveendranathan Nair vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

S. 260A: Right of appeal is not a matter of procedure. It is a substantive right. This right gets vested in the litigants at the commencement of the lis and such a vested right cannot be taken away or cannot be impaired or imperilled or made more stringent or onerous by any subsequent legislation unless the subsequent legislation said so either expressly or by necessary intendment. An intention to interfere with or impair or imperil a vested right cannot be presumed unless such intention be clearly manifested by express words or by necessary implication.



We may mention at the outset that after referring to the judgments noted above even the High Court in the impugned judgment has accepted that right of appeal is not a matter of procedure and that it is a substantive right. It is also recognised that this right gets vested in the litigants at the commencement of the lis and, therefore, such a vested right cannot be taken away or cannot be impaired or imperilled or made more stringent or onerous by any subsequent legislation unless the subsequent legislation said so either expressly or by necessary intendment. An intention to interfere with or impair or imperil a vested right cannot be presumed unless such intention be clearly manifested by express words or by necessary implication. However, the High Court has still dismissed the writ petition as it was of the opinion that the vested right of appeal conferred under Section 260A of the IT Act, insofar as payment of court fee is concerned, is taken away by necessary implication. In other words, the provisions of Section 52A of the 1959 Act inserted by the Amendment Act of 2003, in that sense, have retrospective operation thereby effecting the earlier assessment also. This proposition is advanced with the logic that before prior to introduction of Section 260A in the IT Act with effect from October 01, 1998, there was no right of appeal

Pr CIT vs. Emirates Technologies Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)

S. 271AAA: No penalty u/s 271AAA can be levied in respect of undisclosed income found during a search u/s 132 if the AO did not put a specific query to the assessee by drawing his attention to s. 271 AAA and asking him to specify the manner in which the undisclosed income, surrendered during the course of search, had been derived
The CIT(A) noted that no specific query had been put to the Assessee by drawing his attention to Section 271 AAA of the Act asking him to specify the manner in which the undisclosed income, surrendered during the course of search, had been derived. The CIT (A), therefore, relying on the decisions of this Court held that the jurisdictional requirement of Section 271AAA was not met. The above view has been concurred with by the ITAT. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the concurrent decision of the CIT(A) and the ITAT represent a plausible view which cannot be said to be perverse

Spectrum Coal & Power Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 43(1) Explanation 10: The law laid down in PJ Chemicals 210 ITR 830 (SC) that only a subsidy or grant given to offset the cost of an asset can be reduced from the "actual cost" of the asset and not a general subsidy continues to hold good even after the insertion of Explanation 10 to s. 43(1). A subsidy/ grant from a foreign sovereign Country does not fall within Expl 10 because the foreign Country is not a "person" as defined in s. 2(31)

We have also gone through the provisions of Section 43(1) as well as Explanation 10 thereof. We noted that Section 43(1) defines the actual cost to mean the actual cost of the assets of the assessee reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by other person or authority. In the impugned case, we noted that what the ICICI has financed by way of conditional grant to the assessee is the amount received from USA under the project grant agreement for the Program for Acceleration of Commercial Energy Research. Now the question arises whether USA can be regarded to be a person or authority. In our view, this provision cannot be read without Explanation 10. From the reading of the said explanation, it is explicitly clear that if a portion of a cost of an asset acquired by the assessee has been met directly or indirectly by Central Government or State Government or any authority established under any law or by any other person in the form of a subsidy or a grant or reimbursement, said subsidy grant or reimbursement as is relatable to the asset shall be reduced out of the actual cost of the assessee to the assessee. USA is a sovereign and cannot be Central Government or State Government or any authority established by any law in India