Posts

Showing posts from February, 2024

Order -- CBDT issued order dated 13.02.2024 to remit and extinguish the outstanding demand as declared in Budget speech by FM up to Rs.25,000/- up to AY 2010-11 and up to Rs.10,000/- for AY 2011 to 2015-16. Remission and extinguishment of demands shall be subject to maximum celling of Rs. 1,00,000/- for any specific taxpayer/assessee.

Image
 

Case Law (SC) -- Electoral Bond case -- We ask ourselves is whether the elected would truly be responsive to the electorate if companies which bring with them huge finances and engage in quid pro quo arrangements with parties are permitted to contribute unlimited amounts. Contributions made by companies are purely business transactions, made with the intent of securing benefits in return. It is more plausible that loss-making companies will contribute to political parties with a quid pro quo and not for the purpose of income tax benefits.

  Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors.[ 2024 INSC 113] dated 15.02.2024 “ 201. The Preamble to the Constitution describes India as a “democratic republic”: a democracy in which citizens are guaranteed political equality irrespective of caste and class and where the value of every vote is equal. Democracy does not begin and end with elections. Democracy sustains because the elected are responsive to the electors who hold them accountable for their actions and inactions. Would we remain a democracy if the elected do not heed to the hue and cry of the needy? We have established the close relationship between money and politics above where we explained the importance of money for entry to politics, for winning elections, and for remaining in power. That being the case, the question that we ask ourselves is whether the elected would truly be responsive to the electorate if companies which bring with them huge finances and engage in quid pro quo arra...

Case Law (SC) -- A defective return cannot be regarded as an invalid return unless the assessing officer used their discretion to intimate the assessee about the defect(s) and the defect(s) are not rectified within the specified period by the assessee.

” Mangalam Publications V. CIT [2024 INSC 53] dated 23.01.2024 “43. There is one more aspect which we may mention. Admittedly, the returns for the three assessment years under consideration were not accompanied by the regular books of account. Though under sub-section (9)(f) of Section 139, such returns could have been treated as defective returns by the assessing officer and the assessee intimated to remove the defect failing which the returns would have been invalid, however, the materials on record do not indicate that the assessing officer had issued any notice to the assessee bringing to its notice such defect and calling upon the assessee to rectify the defect within the period as provided under the aforesaid provision. In other words, the assessing officer had accepted the returns submitted by the assessee for the three assessment years under question. At this stage, we may also mention that it is the case of the assessee that though it could not maintain and file regular books ...