Posts

TAX PICKINGS (PROHIBITION OF BENAMI TRANSACTIONS ACT, 1988)

It has been observed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court that the words “date of the order” appearing in Section 46 can only be interpreted and read to mean “date of receipt of the order” for the purpose of computing the limitation for filing the appeal under Section 46 of the Act. In this intra-court writ appeal, the Division Bench overruled the judgment passed by Single Judge Bench, wherein it had been held that if an order is passed but not communicated by the Adjudicating Authority within one year under Section 26(7) of the Act, then the Order would be barred by limitation. The Division Bench held that Section 26(7) prescribed the time for passing of the Order and communication of the Order could not be linked with the passing of the Order. The DB, inter alia, relied on Section 25 and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to conclude that a presumption would operate in such cases on the favor of government authorities.  However, the Division Bench also advised the Income Ta
Post a Comment
Read more

TAX PICKINGS (CERTAIN NICETIES TO BE OBSERVED WHILE RECORDING REASONS FOR REOPENING)

"It is needless to mention that the reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer. No substitution or deletion is permissible. No addition can be made to those reasons. No inference can be allowed to be drawn based on reasons not recorded. It is for the Assessing Officer to disclose and open his mind through reasons recorded by him. He has to speak through his reasons. It is for the Assessing Officer to reach the conclusion as to whether there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material fact necessary for his assessment for the concerned assessment year. It is for the Assessing Officer to form his opinion. It is for him to put his opinion on record in black and white. The reasons recorded should be clear and unambiguous and   should not suffer from any vagueness. The reasons recorded must disclose his mind. Reasons are manifestation of the mind of the assessing Officer. The reason guessing for the reasons record
Post a Comment
Read more

TAX PICKINGS (POWERS OF ITAT UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE IT ACT)

 The powers of the ITAT under Section 254 of the IT Act are very limited and akin to power under O XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Power confined to only rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record. - CIT vs Reliance Telecom Limited, [2022] 440 ITR 1 (SC)
Post a Comment
Read more

TAX PICKINGS (PSUs AS COMPARABLES WHEN APPLYING CUP METHOD OF TRANSFER PRICING)

The Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method is one of the five main transfer pricing methods. It’s used to ensure transactions between related companies are comparable in price to those conducted with unrelated organizations. It has been consistently held by the ITATs across the country that government companies/PSUs could not be considered to be a comparable for the reason that the contracts between public sector undertakings are not driven by profit motive along but other considerations also weigh in such as discharge of social obligations etc. The view has also been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Thyssen Krupp Industries India Pvt. Ltd. [2016] 385 ITR 612( Bom) ; [2016] 68 taxmann.com 248 (Bom).
Post a Comment
Read more

TAX PICKINGS (MEANING OF TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURE IN THE CONTEXT OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT)

The Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd., ITR [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC) has held that there can be no doubt that the duty of disclosing all primary facts relevant to the decision of the question before the assessment authority lies on the assessee. To meet all possible contentions that when some account books or other evidence have been produced, there is no duty of the assessee to disclose further facts which on due diligence the Income tax Officer might have discovered, the Legislature has put in Explanation to section 34 (1). The duty, however, does not extend beyond the full and truthful disclosure of all primary fact before the assessing authority. He requires no further assistance by way of disclosure. It is for him to decide what inferences of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inferences have ultimately to be drawn. It is not for somebody else, far less the assessee, to tell the assessing authority what inferences whether of facts or law should be drawn. The
Post a Comment
Read more