ANBUCHEZHIAN VS. ITSC & ANR. (MAD) 161………… 19TH JANUARY ,2018
SETTLEMENT OF CASES-ORDER OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION- Scope of judicial review vis-à-vis full and disclosure-Settlement Commission considered the aspect as regards full and true disclosure of income and summarized the manner of earning additional income as propounded by the assessee and pointed out that the Authorized Representative was unable to clarify the nothing in diary and the quantum of transaction in paper book – Conduct of the assessee as pointed out by the commission definitely leads to the irresistible conclusion that there has been n full or true disclosure-Thus writ petition is dismissed.-Anbuchezhian vs. ITSC & Anr. (Mad) 161
ARVIND KAYAN VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (CAL) 181…………..30TH AUGUST,2017
LIABILITY IN SPECIAL CASES-LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE-Scope of meaning- Petitioner, son of the deceased, being one of the legal hairs of the deceased, was legal representative of deceased for purposes of recovery proceedings under s. 159-Legal representative includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased.- Arvind Kayan vs. Union of india & Ors. (Cal) 181
PRATHIBHA JEWELLERY HOUSE VS. CIT(A) & ORS. (KAR)174……. 8TH JANUARY, 2018
SEARCH AND SEIZURE- AUTHRISATION UNDER S.132(1)- Power of CIT(A) to examine validity of search- in view of the that the decision of C. Ramaiah Reddy vs. Asstt. CIT(2011) 244 CTR (KAR) 126: (2011) 339 ITR 210(Kar) which allowed the appellate authority to go into the question of validity of search is a subject-matter of pending appeal before the Supreme Court and an Explanation has been inserted in s. 132(1) by Finance Act, 2017 With retrospective effect from 1st April , 1962 which prohibits the appellate authorities to go into the reasons recorded by the concerned IT authority for directing search , CIT(A) cannot be directed by way of a writ of mandamus to go into the question of validity of search under s. 132.-Prathibha Jewellery House vs. CIT(A) & Ors.(Kar)174
WRIT-ALTERNATE REMEDY- Order of CIT(A) declining to examine validity to search-Assessee obviously had an alternate and efficacious remedy against the said order passed by the CIT(A) before the Tribunal under s.253-Therefore, there is no good ground to allow the assessee to bypass the said alternative remedy and directly asail the order of the CIT(A) before the Court- Writ petitions dismissed.-Prathibha Jewellery house vs. CIT(A) & Ors. (Kar)174
PRINCIPAL CIT VS. ORIENTAL INTERNATIONAL CO. (P) LTD. (DEL) 170…….8TH JANUARY,2018
INCOME- CASH CREDIT- Share application money- Assessee had produced confirmation letters, board resolution from each company, PAN details, copies of the memorandum and articles of association, Forms 18 and 32 audited financial statements, copies of pay orders which were used for the share application money etc-in the absence of futher enquiry by AO, Tribunal was justified in deleting addition.-Principal CIT vs. Oriental International Co. (P) Ltd. (Del)170
TRIBUNAL ORDERS
NAWAZ SINGHANIA (MRS.) VS. DY. CIT(MUMBAI)137………………22ND DECEMBER ,2017
INCOME UNDER DISCLOSED SOURCE- ADDITION UNDER S.69A – Jewellery found during search vis-à-vis scope of CBDT Instruction No. 1916, dt.11th may,1994- Since the gross weight of the jewellery disclosed by the assessee family in their regular WT return were in excess of the gross weight of jewellery found in the search, no seizure was possible and therefore, no addition to income is permissible-in the view of the high status of assessee’ s family as well as the custom and practice in the community to which the family belongs, benefit of instruction no. 1916 is to given to the assessee.- Mrs. Nawaz Singhania vs. Dy. CIT (Mumbai)137
MSD PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LTD. VS ADDL. CIT (DEL ‘1-1’)149………10TH NOVEMBER,2017
TRANSFER PRICING-COMPUTATION OF ARM’S LENGTH PRICE-Protective addition vis-à-vis application of bright line test- Application of bright line test for making ALP adjustment in respect of AMP expenses has been held to be unsustainable by the jurisdictional high court, hence TPO was not justified in making the impugned adjustment on protective basis by applying the bright line test.-MSD Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT(Del ‘1-1’)149