The AO wanted to preempt the Tribunal from dealing with the Stay application. The Act and conduct of the Revenue officials is against judicial conscience. Canons of law, justice and ethics have been broken down by the officials of the Department. An effort has been made to render the provisions of the law inoperative, debarring the assessee from availing any remedy from the higher forum
The acquisition of new flat in an apartment under construction should be considered as a case of “Construction” and not “Purchase”.
Amendment in Section 11(6) of the Act vide Finance Act No. 2/2014 which became effective from the Assessment Year 2015-2016 does not have retrospective effect.
Explanation 2 of section 263 (inserted with effect from 01.06.2015) cannot override the law as interpreted by the various High Courts, where the High Courts have held that before reaching a conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, the Commissioner himself has to undertake some enquiry to establish that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. If the Explanation is interpreted to have overridden the law as laid down by various High Courts, then the same would empower the Pr. CIT to find fault with each and every assessment order and also to force the AO to conduct enquiries in the manner preferred by the Pr. CIT, thus prejudicing the mind of the AO, however, the intention of the legislature behind the explanation could not have been so as the same would lead to unending litigation and no finality in the legal proceedings
It is the object for which the subsidy/assistance is given which determines the nature of the incentive subsidy. The form of the mechanism through which the subsidy is given is irrelevant.
Only losses of the years beginning from the initial assessment year alone are to be brought forward and no losses of earlier years which were already set off against the income of assessee, can be looked into