All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP) vs.
UOI (Bombay High Court)
The work of important Tribunal like
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) should not be allowed to suffer on account
of shortage of administrative staff. There is no lethargy on the part of the
Dept in filing up said posts. The Dept is expected to follow up the proposals
to fill up the posts of Assistant Registrars in such quota as well as for
issuing promotions for the posts of Deputy Registrars so that all these pots to
the extent possible can be filled up at the earliest
The petitioner’s grievance that the
work of important Tribunal like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should not be
allowed to suffer on account of shortage of administrative staff is perfectly
legitimate, however, we do not find any lethargy on the part of the Department
in not filing up said posts. Under these circumstances, we would expect the
Department to follow up the proposals to fill up the posts of Assistant
Registrars in such quota as well as for issuing promotions for the posts of
Deputy Registrars so that all these pots to the extent possible can be filled
up at the earliest
Harjeet Surajprakash Girotra vs. UOI (Bombay High
Court)
S. 148, 282, Rule 127: Mere issue of
a s. 148 notice is not sufficient. Service is essential. If the postal
authorities return the notice unserved, the Dept has to serve under Rule 127(2)
using one of the four sources of address (such as PAN address, Bank address etc).
The failure to do so renders the reassessment proceedings invalid (All imp
judgements referred)
In terms of Rule 127 and in
particular, sub-rule (2) therefore, having regard to the further proviso
therein, the Department had to deliver the notice of reassessment at the
petitioner’s address given by her to the bank where her account was maitnained.
No such steps were taken. Service of notice, therefore, was not complete. In
absence of service of notice before the last date envisaged under section 149
of the Act for such purpose, the Assessing Officer could not have proceeded
further with the reassessment proceedings
K. M. Refineries and Infraspace Pvt. Ltd vs. State of
Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)
Doctrine of promissory estoppel:
Once a promise has been solemnly given by the State with an intention that it
would be acted upon and which has been indeed acted upon and liabilities
suffered by the promisee, the State cannot be permitted to backtrack on the
promise and change its position so as to cause loss to the promisee. The
eligibility for sales-tax exemption cannot be withdrawn under GST
Two propositions of law emerge from
the above observations. Firstly, once the promise is solemnly given by the
State with an intention that when acted upon, it would create a legal relation
and acting on it the promisee has changed his/her position and incurred
liability, the State must be held as bound by the promise, except when owing to
change of circumstances or subsequent developments larger public interests
demand that the promise be not enforced against the State lest newly
established balance of equities would tilt against the Government or larger
public interest. Secondly, the doctrine is equitable in nature, and therefore,
it must yield when the equity so requires
United Investments vs. ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)
S. 10(38): The fact that
"long-term capital gains" on listed shares are exempt from tax does
not mean that "long-term capital loss" on such shares is not
available for set-off against taxable income. While the gains are exempt, there
is no bar against claiming set-off of the loss CBDT (J.H. Gotla 156 ITR 323
(SC) distinguished, CBDT Circular No.7/2013 dated 16.07.2013 referred, Raptakos
Bret 69 SOT 383 (Mum) followed)
If one carefully analyzes various
sub-sections of Section 10 then it is evident that each sub-section enlists
specific specie of receipt to which exemption from tax is granted if certain
conditions are fulfilled. We therefore find that Section 10 enlists various
species of receipts which are otherwise revenue in nature but they are granted
exemption from income-tax by the Legislature. The Legislature can grant
exemption only when there is a positive income and not where there is a ‘loss’
or negative income on which admittedly there cannot be any charge of income-tax
No comments:
Post a Comment