Chief CIT v. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 434/122 Taxman 91 (SC) (para 5.3) and CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 518/102 Taxman 713 (SC) (para 5.3) followed.
Monday 12 October 2015
Assessing Officer made a certain addition in income of assessee under section 41(1) with regard to credit balances of three parties appearing in his account books - He held that these creditors were having opening balances and this liability was not existing in account books during year - Record showed that assessee was still showing these creditors as liability and he had not written back said liability in account books - Whether in terms of provisions of section 41(1), impugned addition was not sustainable - Held, yes -Sheikh Abdul Farid[2015] 61 taxmann.com 176 (Lucknow - Trib.)
Where notice under section 148 was issued after obtaining sanction from Commissioner instead of Joint Commissioner who is competent authority to approve issuance of notice, assessment framed consequent thereto was not valid and same was void ab initio -Sardar Balbir Singh[2015] 61 taxmann.com 320 (Lucknow - Trib.)MARCH 13, 2015
Jai Prakash Ahuja v. ITO [2014] 48 taxmann.com 86 [2015] 152 ITD 592 (Luck. - Trib.) (para 7) CIT v.SPL's Siddhartha Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 223 (Delhi),followed.
The apex court in the case of Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat [1995] 5 SCC 302 has held that if a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion. If discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with some higher authorities instruction, then it will be a case of failure to exercise discretion altogether. [Para 9]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)