II. Direct Tax Case laws:
1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus PRAMOD KUMAR DANG, ITA 62/2001, Date of Order : January 2014, High Court of Delhi.
Whether
the Tribunal was correct in its view that requirements of Section
249(4)(a) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 were complied with, where advance
tax paid together with cash seized is in excess of tax on returned
income, where due request made by assessee to adjust seized cash against
tax due?
Held Yes.
The
rationale behind Section 249(4) is where an Assessee has filed a return
of income, then the tax which is admittedly payable by the Assessee
should be paid prior to the hearing of any appeal filed by the Assessee.
It is to enforce payment of tax on admitted income. Where an Assessee
files the return of income then at least the tax which is payable in
terms of the return income should be paid by the Assessee. But where the
Assessee either has paid the tax on the returned income or sought
adjustment of the amount admittedly lying with the revenue towards the
tax payable on the returned income, the Assessee cannot be denied a
hearing.
(Please click here to view the Judgment)
2.
Commissioner of Income-tax-III v. Golden Finance, TAX APPEAL NO. 393 OF
2011, DATE OF ORDER: SEPTEMBER 15, 2012, High Court of Gujrat.
Addition
by the Assessing Officer, on the basis of a document impounded during
survey and statement of partner of the assessee's firm who stated that
one zero was omitted from such impounded document, whether justified?
Held No.
The
Tribunal deleted the addition on the ground that such statement recorded
during survey could not have been relied upon. Reference was placed on
decision of Kerala High Court in case of Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT
[2003] 263 ITR 101. The Tribunal further noted that theory of omission
of one zero is not borne out from the impounded document. Tribunal was
therefore, of the opinion that the addition made on basis of such theory
was thus not justified. The Tribunal. further observed that the
contents of the documents do not suggest or bring out that notings are
of loans and advances. The Tribunal was therefore, of the opinion that
such addition was made only on conjectures and surmises. On such basis
the Tribunal reduced the additions from Rs.31,21,590/- to 3,12,159/- and
deleted the rest.
(Please click here to view the Judgment)
|