Three Imp Verdicts On Core Issues + Download CBDT Report On PE Profits + Article On Latest SC Verdict On Benami Law

[itatonl...@gmail.com]

See the footer if you would like to unsubscribe from the newsletter

Dear Subscriber,

The following important updates are available at itatonline.org:

PCIT vs. A. A. Estate Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)

S. 260A: There is a distinction between questions proposed by the appellant for admission of the appeal (u/s 260­A(2)(c)) and the questions framed by the Court (u/s 260­A(3)). The High Court has to formulate substantial question of law and only thereafter hear the appeal on merits. If the High Court is of the view that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, it should record a categorical finding to that effect & dismiss the appeal in limine. However, it cannot, without admitting the appeal and framing any question of law, issue notice to the respondent, hear both parties on the questions urged by the appellant and dismiss it. This is not in conformity with the mandatory procedure prescribed in s. 260­A

It was, however, not done and instead the High Court without admitting the appeal and framing any question of law issued notice of appeal to the respondent­ assessee, heard both the parties on the questions urged by the appellant and dismissed it. In our view, the respondent had a right to argue “at the time of hearing” of the appeal that the questions framed were not involved in the appeal and this the respondent could urge by taking recourse to sub­ section (5) of Section 260­A of the Act. But this stage in this case did not arise because as mentioned above, the High Court neither admitted the appeal nor framed any question as required under sub­section (3) of Section 260­A of the Act. The expression “such question” referred to in sub­ section (5) of Section 260­A of the Act means the questions which are framed by the High Court under sub­section (3) of Section 260­A at the time of admission of the appeal and not the one proposed in Section 260­A (2) (c) of the Act by the appellant

Rajbhushan Omprakash Dixit vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

S. 147/ 148: The fact that the assessee did not disclose the material is not relevant if the AO was otherwise aware of it. If the AO had the information during the assessment proceeding, irrespective of the source, but chooses not to utilize it, he cannot allege that the assessee failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts & reopen the assessment (Scope of Explanation 1 to S. 147 explained)

As per this Explanation thus, production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the first proviso to Section 147. Here is not a case where the Assessee is seeking to rely on a disclosure which the Revenue can seek to bring within the fold of the said Explanation. Here is a case where the Department already had collected certain documents and materials which were before the Assessing Officer at the time of framing assessment. If the Assessing Officer did not, for some reason, advert to such material or did not utilize the same, he surely cannot allege that the Assessee failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts

Rupa Shyamsundar Dhumatkar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

S. 148 Reopening: As per settled law, notice for reopening of assessment against a dead person is invalid. The fact that the AO was not informed of the death before issue of notice is irrelevant. Consequently, the s. 148 notice is set aside and order of assessment stands annulled (Alamelu Veerappan 257 TM 72 (Mad) followed)

There are several judgments of different High Courts holding that the notice or reopening of assessment is invalid in law. It is not necessary to refer to all the judgments on the point. Suffice it to say, as per the settled law, notice for reopening of assessment against a dead person is invalid

Download Report Of Committee On Profit Attribution | CBDT Invites Comments

In view of the the significance of issues relating to attribution of profits to a permanent establishment as well as the need to bring greater clarity and predictability in the applicable tax regime, the CBDT had formed a Committee to examine the existing scheme of profit attribution to PE under Article 7 of DTAAs and recommend changes in Rule 10 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Committee has now submitted its report. The CBDT has sought suggestions/ comments of the stakeholders and the general public on the report

Benami Transactions: Analysis Of Latest Judgement Of The Supreme Court In P. Leelavathi vs. V. Shankarnarayana Rao

In P. Leelavathi vs. V. Shankarnarayana Rao the Supreme Court has set the guidelines and paved the roadmap to be followed by the lower courts and authorities while dealing with the issue of Benami properties under the new law. Advocates Ashwani Taneja & Renu Taneja have analyzed the judgement in meticulous detail and explained all of its salient features

See Also: Digest of case laws (updated regularly) containing latest judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

EC Slams CBDT For ‘Insolence’, CBDT Stays Defiant. Claims Recovery Of Rs. 280 Cr Of Black Money From Politicians