“Section 154(4)”
The decision most relied on for Section 154(4) is McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO (154 ITR 148), cited in 741 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 154(4)
The Supreme Court held that while legitimate tax planning is permissible, transactions structured as a "colourable device" or "subterfuge" solely to avoid tax are impermissible. It mandates a judicial shift to look beyond the form to the substance of a transaction, allowing the lifting of the corporate veil in tax evasion arrangements.
A mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 must be an obvious and patent error, not one that requires a long and elaborate process of reasoning or where two opinions are conceivable. Rectification under Section 154 is not permissible for re-examining issues already considered or requiring detailed re-computation.
Reasons recorded under Section 148 for reopening an assessment are jurisdictional facts that form the sole basis for assuming power and cannot be changed, supplemented, or corrected later. Such reasons must be based on fresh tangible material indicating income escapement.
Reasons constitute the soul of any judicial or quasi-judicial decision. Assessing Officers, including the CPC, must pass reasoned orders and not act arbitrarily or summarily when issuing intimations under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act.
Co-operative housing societies are entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act for interest income earned from investments made in co-operative banks.
Where the shares of beneficiaries in a trust are determinate, trustees must be assessed separately for each beneficiary's share, treating each beneficiary as an individual. The income is then taxed at the marginal rate applicable to individuals, not at the maximum rate for an association of persons.
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.
An addition to income cannot be made solely based on a Departmental Valuation Officer's report without any corroborating incriminating material. The burden of proof rests on the revenue.