The assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80HHC after a full disclosure of the material facts. As four years had elapsed from the end of the assessment year, the assessment could not be reopened in the absence of failure to disclose the material facts. The judgment of the Supreme Court is an expression of opinion on the interpretation of statute. Merely because a judgment has been rendered, the same cannot be a ground for reopening the assessment u/s 147 as it amounts to a change of opinion. Austin Engineering 312 ITR 70 (Guj) followed)

The scheme of settlement does not contemplate revision of the income so disclosed in the application. If an assessee is permitted to revise his disclosure, in essence, he would be making a fresh application in relation to the same case by withdrawing the earlier application. S. 245C (3) prohibits the withdrawal of an application. An assessee cannot be permitted to resile from his stand at any stage during the proceedings. By revising the application, the applicant would be achieving something indirectly what he cannot otherwise achieve directly and in the process rendering s. 245 (3) otiose and meaningless. As there is no stipulation for revision of an application filed u/s 245C(1), the natural corollary is that determination of income by the Settlement Commission has necessarily to be with reference to the income disclosed in the application

There is a distinction between the subject matter of a tax and the standard by which the amount of tax is measured. The subject matter of tax is capital gains and the manner in which it should be computed is provided by s. 50C. S. 50C is only a measure of tax and not the subject matter of tax. The valuation rule of the Stamp Act is for the purpose of computation of income. It is only a standard of measure for imposing tax. (Principle laid down in A. Sanyasi Rao 219 ITR 330 (SC) followed)

Relevance Of OECD Guidelines: Department's View

Download The Direct Tax Code Bill 2010

The ITAT Bar Association organized a felicitation function on 24th August 2010 in honour of Justice F. I. Rebello on his elevation as Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court

S. 14A & Rule 8D have been the source of unending controversy. The author, a former Vice President of the Tribunal who delivered the dissenting judgement in ITO vs. Daga Capital, has studied the controversy in great depth. With his usual clarity of thinking, the author has provided valuable guidance on the prevailing legal position and as to what assessees can expect in the future

Clauses (v) to (viia) of s. 56(2) incorporate the law on taxation of gifts. The author, an eminent Chartered Accountant, has meticulously analyzed the provisions of law and identified numerous problems therein. Using his vast experience in the subject, the author has proposed a number of credible solutions as well

No practitioner can afford to be unaware of latest judgements & whether experts view the judgement as being right or wrong. Towards that end, the author has agreed to take time out of his busy schedule to make an analysis of landmark judgements every quarter. In the third part, the author has identified four landmark judgements analyzed them with a critical eye and identified their strengths & shortcomings.

The author argues that non-residents dread the 'Force of Attraction' rule in Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements because it permits the taxation of income arising outside the Contracting State. The 'Force of Attraction' rule can also create an anomalous situation where an assessee may be better off under the domestic law than under the tax-treaty law, says the author

The Finance Minister publicly expressed his anguish at the mounting number of frivolous cases filed by the department which are choking the Courts. The author, a public-spirited citizen ever eager to help the FM in such matters, puts on his thinking cap and formulates a 12-point agenda to cure the malaise. If implemented in real earnest, the mindless filing of departmental appeals will cease, assures the author. Is the FM listening?

The Author fondly refers to the Tribunal as 'Mother' and urges that by the time its Platinum Jubilee is celebrated, it must be regarded as the finest legal Institution in the Country. It is possible, he says, if the Bar and the Bench play their part!

Relevance Of OECD Guidelines: Department's View

The assessee had claimed deduction u/s 80HHC after a full disclosure of the material facts. As four years had elapsed from the end of the assessment year, the assessment could not be reopened in the absence of failure to disclose the material facts. The judgment of the Supreme Court is an expression of opinion on the interpretation of statute. Merely because a judgment has been rendered, the same cannot be a ground for reopening the assessment u/s 147 as it amounts to a change of opinion. Austin Engineering 312 ITR 70 (Guj) followed)

Download The Direct Tax Code Bill 2010

S. 14A & Rule 8D have been the source of unending controversy. The author, a former Vice President of the Tribunal who delivered the dissenting judgement in ITO vs. Daga Capital, has studied the controversy in great depth. With his usual clarity of thinking, the author has provided valuable guidance on the prevailing legal position and as to what assessees can expect in the future

The ITAT Bar Association organized a felicitation function on 24th August 2010 in honour of Justice F. I. Rebello on his elevation as Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court