Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
ITAT said that the entire addition has been made by the AO as well as CIT based on guess work and estimation based on some alleged information received from Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra and from DGIT that “the assessee has taken bogus purchase bills without having taken any delivery of the goods”, without applying their mind.
ITAT held that the second proviso to Clause (i) of Section 40(a) just like second proviso to clause (ia) of Section 40(a) was inserted to remove an anomaly and were therefore curative and declaratory in nature. Hence, it had to be given retrospective effect.
ITAT noted that an identical issue was subject matter of consideration of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, hence following the precedent, the Tribunal directed that the payment received in this case cannot be treated as FTS under Article 12 (5) of India Netherlands DTAA.
ITAT upheld the order of the CIT and said that the assessee had only provided treatment to a few patients at concessional rates, which was less than 1% of the revenue of the assessee. Thus, the activities of the assessee cannot be said to be charitable activities and it is not entitled for registration or approval under section 10(23C) or 12A of the Income Tax Act.
by Tarun Jain†
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 79
“…the statutory regime requiring that a thing be done in a certain manner, also implies (even in the absence of any express terms), that the other forms of doing it are impermissible.”
“What is non-existent in the eye of the law cannot be revived retrospectively.”
Supreme Court: In a case where the assessment order for actor Amitabh Bachchan’s income in the year 2001-2002 was in question, the