Skip to main content

No Re-Assessment till Appeal against Original Assessment order is Disposed

In Radhawami Salt works v. ACIT, a division bench of the Gujarat High Court held that re-assessment under s. 147/148 of the Income Tax Act cannot be made when the original assessment order is challenged on appeal and is not yet disposed. Assessee took 350 acres of land on lease from the Government for the production of land. Coastal Gujarat Private Limited (CGPL) was interested in purchasing such land and therefore privately negotiated with the petitioner to give up its rights prematurely. Accordingly, assessee surrendered the lease to the Government. This land was thereafter sold by the Government to CGPL. CGPL had separately made payment of Rs.29.92 crores to the assessee in two installments. Assessee in its return, shown the amount as long term capital gain received in lieu of transfer of land. However, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee contended that such receipt was not in the nature of capital gain but was one time receipt which was not taxable. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the contention and treated the same as capital gain. A second appeal filed against the order is pending for disposal before the ITAT.

Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/re-assessment-not-permissible-appeal-original-assessment-order-not-disposed-gujarat-hc/8751/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Taxscan+%28Top+Stories+%E2%80%93+Taxscan+%7C+Simplifying+Tax+Laws%29

Comments

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...