the respondent-assessee had, by way of donation, received two cheques for a sum of Rs.40 lac each from M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd. One of the cheques was dated 22nd April, 2002 and yet it was given in accounting year 2001-2002 i.e. before 31st March, 2002. The said cheque for donation was received by the respondent assessee before 31st March, 2002 but was honoured after 1st April, 2002 i.e. in accounting year 2002-2003

Larger Bench-Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the assessment under Chapter XIV-B in light of the specific provision contained in Section 158BB(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act.

In its return of income for the relevant assessment years, the assessee claimed, among other heads, depreciation in relation to certain assets, (additions made to the trucks) which, as explained above, had been financed by the assessee but registered in the name of third parties. The assessee also claimed depreciation at a higher rate on the ground that the vehicles were used in the business of running on hire.

whether the manufacture and sale of specified goods that do not physically bear a brand name, from branded sale outlets, would disentitle an assessee from the benefit of S.S.I. Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28th February, 1993, as amended from time to time.

The Bangalore Club sought an exemption from payment of income tax on the interest earned on the fixed deposits kept with certain banks, which were corporate members of the assessee, on the basis of doctrine of mutuality. However, tax was paid on the interest earned on fixed deposits kept with non-member banks.

The show cause notice was issued on 02.08.2001, more than six months after the appellant had imported furnace oil on behalf of Uniworth Ltd. in January, 2001- The conclusion that mere non-payment of duties is equivalent to collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts is, in our opinion, untenable. If that were to be true, we fail to understand which form of non-payment would amount to ordinary default? Construing mere non-payment as any of the three categories contemplated by the proviso would leave no situation for which, a limitation period of six months may apply. In our opinion, the main body of the Section, in fact, contemplates ordinary default in payment of duties and leaves cases of collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts, a smaller, specific and more serious niche, to the proviso. Therefore, something more must be shown to construe the acts of the appellant as fit for the applicability of the proviso

assessee revoked the gift on 15th June 1988 with the result that the 6000 shares gifted to the transferee came back to the assessee. However, the 14,000 bonus shares allotted to the transferee while it was the holder of the equity shares of the company continued with the transferee. Gift Tax Officer held that the revocable transaction entered into by the assessee was only for the purpose of reducing the tax liability. As such, it could not be accepted as a valid gift.