“Section 253(4)”
The decision most relied on for Section 253(4) is Glass Lines Equipments Company Ltd. v. CIT (253 ITR 454), cited in 150 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 253(4)
The Assessing Officer cannot selectively accept parts of a statement or seized evidence that are favourable to the revenue while rejecting other parts favourable to the assessee without proper investigation; the evidence must be considered as a whole. Additions cannot be made based on mere presumptions or surmises without further inquiry.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) can consider questions of law arising in assessment proceedings even if they were not raised before the lower authorities. An appellate authority possesses all powers of the original authority, subject to statutory limitations.
The Supreme Court considered the delay in filing an appeal and the appellant's justification for it. The court noted that the appellant's registered address was used for communication and that the postal authorities returned mail. The court referenced its earlier decision in 'Meda Raja Kishor Raghuramy Reddy Vs ACIT' when considering the appellant's case.
There is no legal presumption that every person knows the law, and the maxim 'ignorantia juris non excusat' does not imply universal legal awareness. This principle is applied when evaluating whether a taxpayer's genuine belief or ignorance of law impacts their liability for penalties or constitutes reasonable cause.
When the valuation of closing stock is adjusted to include CENVAT or Modvat credit under Section 145A, a corresponding adjustment must also be made to the opening stock.
A judicial decision is authority only for what it actually decides, which is its ratio decidendi, and not for every observation or what logically follows from general expressions. A decision must be read as applicable to the facts proved, with general expressions qualified by the specific context in which they are found.
The Supreme Court dismisses appeals seeking condonation of excessive delay in filing, especially when the reasons provided for the delay, such as attributing it to an employee, are not found to be sufficient or convincing.
Gains from the indirect transfer of shares in a foreign company holding Indian shares are not taxable in India under the relevant tax treaty, which is considered a self-contained code to be interpreted plainly. Creating corporate structures or special purpose vehicles for investment to secure tax benefits is a legitimate business activity.
