Page Contents
1.Land acquired under an agreement not to be held as compulsory acquisition under Sec. 194LA
2. No search proceedings against client due to seizure of CA’s hard disk
containing ITR data of client
3. Failure to serve reassessment notice couldn’t be cured by deeming fiction of sec. 292BB
In Detailed:
1. Land acquired under an agreement not to be held as compulsory acquisition under Sec. 194LA October 31, 2015[2015] (Bangalore – Trib.)
IT : The question of compulsory acquisition will arise only where the compensation cannot be determined by agreement. In other words when the compensation is based on an agreement between State Government and owner of the land, no more can we say that it is a compulsory acquisition
The disputed issue is as under:
Whether acquisition of land under an agreement by Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (a state Government Undertaking) with landowners under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 (‘KIA Act’) would be deemed as compulsory acquisition within the meaning of Sec.194LA?”
Held:
| (1) | Section 194LA applies only when there is a compulsory acquisition under law. Under the compulsory acquisition, the seller has no option but to sell the land. He cannot even negotiate the price as the same is fixed by the statute itself. | |
| (2) | In the instant case, the landowners and a State Government Undertaking (i.e., assessee) entered into an agreement whereby they mutually agreed for the amount of compensation which was fixed in accordance with Section 29(2) of the KIA Act. | |
| (3) | The question of compulsory acquisition will arise only where the compensation cannot be determined by agreement. In other words, when the compensation is based on an agreement between the State Government and the owner of the land, no more can we say that it is a compulsory acquisition. | |
| (4) | In the instant case, compensation was based on an agreement between the State Government and the owner of the land, and, therefore, it could not be said to be a case of compulsory acquisition. Thus, once the acquisition is not considered compulsory, Sec.194LA of the IT Act will not be applicable. | |
| (5) | The matter was remanded back to AO for verification whether in all the cases payment was made under agreement only. Once it was found that the acquisition resulted from an agreement, it would not be considered a compulsory acquisition. [2015] (Bangalore – Trib.) |
IN THE ITAT BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’
Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board
Income-tax Officer, TDS Ward
October 31, 2015(Delhi)
IT : Delhi HC lays down principles to avoid vexatious proceedings u/s 153C against person other than person searched
Court rules on relevant date for application of sec 153A where AO of searched is also AO of the other person
If AO of the searched person and the other person is one and the same, date on which satisfaction is recorded by the AO that assets/documents belong to the other person is the relevant date for application of section 153A
Hard disk seized from CA with data pertaining to ITR filing of client doesnt “belong to” client for invoking sec 153C
The hard disk recovered from computer belonging to CA during search on CA’s premises containing workings supporting client’s ITR filing cannot be said to “belong to the client”. Therefore, section 153C cannot be invoked against the client based on such seized hard disk. Merely because the data pertained to the client, the hard disk seized from CA cannot be said to belong to the client
If is apparent that assets seized from another person do not pertain to assessee, AO cann’t commence enquiry u/s 153C
It is not necessary for AO to be satisfied that assets/documents seized during search of another person reflect assessee’s undisclosed income before commencing an enquiry u/s 153C. However, it would be impermissible for AO to commence an enquiry u/s 153C if it is apparent that assets/documents seized from another person do not pertain to assessee, AO can’t commence enquiry u/s 153C [2015](Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Commissioner of Income-tax.-7 RRJ Securities Ltd.
October 29, 2015(Delhi)
IT: In order to complete reassessment, notice under section 148 has to be mandatorily served upon assessee in accordance with section 282(1), read with Order V, Rule 12 CPC and Order III Rule 6 CPC
IT: Where prior to completion of reassessment, assessee raised an objection that he had not been duly served in accordance with section 148, proviso to section 292BB was attracted and revenue could not take advantage of main portion of section 292BB [2015] (Delhi)
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-I
Chetan Gupta
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances; Hope the information will assist you in your Professional endeavors. For query or help, contact: singh@carajput.com or call at 9555555480
Read more for related blogs are ;
All about Financial Forensics & its Applications Financial Forensics and Forensic Audit Techniques Financial forensics and forensic audit techniques are… Read More
Code of Conduct in Forensic Audit: Introduction: A forensic audit is a specialized examination that investigates financial records to uncover… Read More
When is the cancellation revocation applicable? Procedure for Implement Revocation for GST cancellation This applies only if, on its own… Read More
Enhancement Made to the GST Portal - Significant Update Goods and Services Tax Network is pleased to inform that an… Read More
ITC Mismatch GSTR-2B vs GSTR-3B - DRC-01C Intimation under Rule 88D New mechanism to deal with Input Tax Credit mismatches… Read More
Hurdles with Hindu Undivided Family Dissolution: The Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is a recognized legal entity under the Income-tax Act,… Read More
