TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court sets aside disputed tax calculation, orders recalculation within 3 months.</h1> <h3>Agarwal Industrial Corporations Limited, Versus Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi, The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Ward 14 (1) (1), Raigad. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-6,</h3> Agarwal Industrial Corporations Limited, Versus Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, Central Board of Direct Taxes New ... Issues:1. Reassessment of income under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) restricting the addition of alleged bogus purchases.3. Tribunal's order remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer based on a specific judgment.4. Appeal by the revenue against the Tribunal's order under section 260A of the Act.5. Filing of declaration under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act and dispute regarding the calculation of disputed tax.6. Rectification application filed by the petitioner regarding the demand raised in Form No.3.7. Interpretation of section 2(1)(j)(B) of the Act of 2020 in the context of disputed tax calculation.8. Application of FAQ No.7 issued by the CBDT in the calculation of disputed tax.9. Justification of the disputed tax calculation based on the Tribunal's order. Analysis:1. The petitioner's income reassessment was done under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, resulting in a significant increase due to alleged bogus purchases. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) later restricted the addition, leading to appeals and a remand by the Tribunal for the Assessing Officer to apply a specific judgment's ratio on genuine and hawala purchases.2. The Tribunal's decision was challenged by the revenue through an appeal under section 260A of the Act, leading to a dispute over the calculation of disputed tax under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act. The petitioner's declaration and subsequent issues with the demand raised in Form No.3 were raised, highlighting discrepancies in the tax liability calculation.3. The rectification application filed by the petitioner was rejected, citing reliance on FAQ No.7 issued by the CBDT. However, the court determined that the calculation of disputed tax should be based on the Tribunal's order, as per section 2(1)(j)(B) of the Act of 2020, emphasizing the need to give effect to the appellate forum's decision.4. The court clarified that FAQ No.7's application was not relevant in this case, as the Tribunal's order did not require a fresh examination by the Assessing Officer but provided a specific direction on the addition based on gross profit rates. The court set aside the disputed tax calculation based on FAQ No.7 and directed the respondent to recalculate the disputed tax in line with the Tribunal's order within three months, resolving the writ petition.
TaxTMI 