Section 10(13)(ii) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section 10(13)(ii), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
S.D.S. Mongia v Central Board of Direct Taxes — a receipt excluded by s.10(13) does not become taxable because the assessee offered it, and Article 226 can correct that even where the s.264 revision is time-barred
High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
My client offered a superannuation fund receipt to tax for several years before realising it was exempt. His section 264 revision has been rejected as time-barred and the assessment years are closed. Is there anything left?
The Delhi High Court gave relief on exactly those facts. It upheld the Commissioner's rejection of the section 264 revision as barred by limitation, but held that the constraints felt by the Commissioner under section 264 do not impinge on the Court's powers under Article 226; that Article 265 mandates that no person shall be taxed without the authority of law; and that since there was no authority to tax the annuities the petitioner had received, it was appropriate to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction to correct the injustice even though the injustice was of the assessee's own making.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.