Month: July 2016

Archive for July, 2016


CIT vs. TCL India Holdings Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: July 12, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 19, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Strictures passed against department for casual and careless representation despite huge revenue implications. Dept directed to take remedial measures such as updating the website, appointment of meritorious advocates, proper evaluation of work done by the advocates, ensuring even distribution of work amongst advocates etc. Prevailing practice of evaluating competence of advocates on basis of "cases won or lost" deplored

Instruction No.3/2012 dated 11th April, 2012 of the CBDT also sets out the parameters of performance of the counsel for renewal of his appointment, one of the criteria mentioned therein is the number of cases won by the Counsel for the Income Tax department. This can never be a measure of competence of an Advocate i.e. an officer of the Court. In fact, the quality of the Advocate would be best judged by his performance and not in the result of the litigation. This evaluation can take place only when the Advocate is seen in action. We find that when the Advocates appear before us, very rarely are the Assessing Officer or other Officers involved in the litigation present in Court. In case, they are present, they would be able to give feedback to the Commissioner of Income Tax which could be factored in while briefing him and / or renewing his engagement

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

CIT vs. Halliburton Export Inc (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 11, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 14, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10, 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(vi): Though in Infrasoft 220 Taxman 273 (Del) the impact of the amendment to s. 9(1)(vi) on the question whether consideration received for sale of pre-packaged software was “royalty” or “fee for technical services” or "business income" was not examined, it is not required to be examined because u/s 90 (3) provides that the Act prevails only if it is more beneficial compared to the DTAA

The short question considered by the Court in Director of Income Tax v. Infrasoft Limited (2014) 220 Taxman 273 (Del) was whether the term “royalty” covered by Article 12 (3) of the DTAA would apply in the context of sale of pre-packaged copyrighted software. The Court stated that it has not examined the effect of the subsequent amendment to Section 9 (1) (vi) of the Act and also whether the amount received for use of software would be royalty in terms thereof for the reason that the Assessee is covered by the DTAA, the provisions of which are more beneficial

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 27, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 14, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07, 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
An assessment made u/s 153A only on the basis of pre-search enquiries and because the parties did not appear in response to s. 133(6) summons is not valid if no incriminating material was found in search. A s. 143(1) Intimation is deemed to be a completed assessment if no notice u/s 143 (2) has been issued prior to the date of search. The ratio of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 173 (Del) has to be understood by perusing the judgment in entirety and not by picking up the favourable sentences and by ignoring the unfavourable ones

The AO has not made assessment on the basis of incriminating material unearthed during search and seizure operation conducted u/s 132 rather proceeded u/s 153A of the Act on the basis of some pre-search enquiries to make an addition as has specifically been recorded in para 6 of the assessment order that, “Pre search enquiries revealed that M/s Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd., the flagship company involved in the real estate business of the S.K. Jaipuria group is indulged in inflating the cost of the project by debiting bogus expenses by raising bills from the non-existing parties or the entry providers.

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Bindiya H. Malkani vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 29, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 12, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1989-90
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(42A)/ 45: An agreement to purchase property merely creates a right to seek specific performance. The asset cannot be considered to be "held" from the date of the agreement so as to constitute long-term capital gains

Consequent to the vendor not honouring the agreement dated 18th May, 1980, all that the appellant had was a right to seek specific performance which he sought to enforce by filing the suit. The appellant did not have possession of the said land. It is only on the Consent Terms being filed in Court that the appellant got ownership and possession

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Safari Mercantile Private Limited vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 23, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 12, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2): In an order passed in a Miscellaneous Application, the Tribunal cannot deal with the merits of the issue. The Tribunal must recall the original appellate order and refix the matter for hearing and pass an order u/s 254(1) of the Act

This disposing of Miscellaneous Application could only be after recalling the conclusion in its order dated 9th May, 2006 allowing the Revenue’s appeal and hearing the petitioner on the issue of penalty being imposable even in the absence of a demand notice being served upon the assessee. This was for the reason that its conclusion was reached without having considered the petitioner’s contention that no penalty can be imposed in the absence of receipt of a demand notice by the petitioner. However, the Tribunal in the impugned order has dealt with the issue of imposition of penalty being imposed under Section 221 of the Act even without service of demand notice under Section 156 of the Act upon an assessee. This the Tribunal could have only done while passing an order in appeal. The consequent order which would have been passed in appeal would enable the parties to challenge the same before this Court in an appeal under Section 260A of the Act. The procedure adopted by the Revenue in this case has deprived the right of statutory appeal to the petitioner

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

DIT vs. Citibank N. A. (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 11, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 8, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1999-00
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Law laid down by the Tribunal in (i) Central Bank of India v/s. DCIT 42 SOT 450 that under Art 26(3) of India-USA DTAA payments to Non-Residents are equated with payments to Residents & so s. 40(a)(i) disallowance is not valid and (ii) in DCIT v/s. Bank of Baharain & Kuwait 132 TTJ (Mum) 505 that loss arising from unmatured foreign exchange contracts is not a notional loss but is allowable as a definite liability is final as Dept has not challenged these verdicts and the issue cannot be raised in case of other assessees

The Assessee during subject Assessment Year made payment through Master Card International and Visa Card International being assessment and equipment fees. The payments were made by the Assessee without deducting tax at source. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer & CIT(A) disallowed the entire amount of fees remitted, aggregating to Rs.82.33 lakhs in terms of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. The Tribunal allowed the Appeal of the Assessee by followed its decision in the case of Central Bank of India v/s. DCIT 42 SOT 450 – wherein on similar facts, it was held that even if no TDS is deducted, the payments made to Visa Card International and Master Card International on account of fees could not be disallowed in view of Article 26(3) of Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA)

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

CIT vs. Goodwill Theatres Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 6, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 8, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Mesne profits (amount received from a person in wrongful possession of property) is a capital receipt and not chargeable to tax either as income or as "book profits" u/s 115JB. As the department has implicitly accepted Narang Overseas vs. ACIT 100 ITD (Mum) (SB), it cannot file an appeal on the issue in the case of other assessees

The Special Bench of the Tribunal in Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd held that the same is capital in nature. There is no doubt that the issue arising herein is also with regard to the character of mesne profits received by the Assessee. In this case also, the amounts are received by the Assessee from a person in wrongful possession of its property i.e. after the relationship of landlord and tenant has come to an end. Once the Special Bench order of the Tribunal in Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd has taken a view on the character of mesne profits, then unless the Revenue challenges the order of the Special Bench of the Tribunal it would be unfair of the Revenue to pick and choose assessees where it would follow the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd. The least that is expected of the State which prides itself on Rule of Law is that it would equally apply the law to all assessees’s

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

CIT vs. Shree Balaji Alloys (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 19, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 7, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Subsidy by way of refund of excise duty and interest for setting up a new industrial undertaking is a capital receipt & not taxable as income. Alternatively, such receipts are "derived" from the industrial undertaking and are deductible u/s 80-IB

The issue raised in these appeals is covered against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in “Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd.”, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 337, or in the alternate, in “Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Meghalaya Steels Ltd.“, reported in (2016) 3 SCALE 192 (383 ITR 217 (SC)). The appeals are, therefore, dismissed

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court

H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 30, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 7, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1983-84
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68: The assessee is bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitted to cross examine the deponents. The denial of such opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment order and renders it vulnerable

On a very fundamental aspect, the revenue was not justified in making addition at the time of reassessment without having first given the assessee an opportunity to cross examine the deponent on the statements relied upon by the ACIT. Quite apart from denial of an opportunity of cross examination, the revenue did not even provide the material on the basis of which the department sought to conclude that the loan was a bogus transaction. This not having been done, the denial of such opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the reassessment and therefore renders the orders passed by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal vulnerable

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

CIT vs. CitiBank N.A. (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 12, 2008 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 6, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Interest paid for broken period should not be considered as part of the purchase price, but should be allowed as revenue expenditure in the year of purchase of securities. American Express vs. CIT 258 ITR 601 (Bom) affirmed, Vijaya Bank 187 ITR 541 (SC) distinguished

It was argued on behalf of the Revenue, that in view of the judgment in Vijaya Bank Ltd.’s case [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC), even if the securities were treated as part of the trading assets, the income therefrom had to be assessed under section 18 of the Act and not under section 28 of the Act as income from securities can only come within section 18 and not under section 28. We do not find any merit in this argument. Firstly, as stated above, Vijaya Bank Ltd.’s case [1991] 187 ITR 541 (SC) has no application to the facts of this case. Secondly, in the present case, the Tribunal has found that the securities were held as trading assets. Thirdly, it has been held by the Supreme Court in the subsequent decision reported in the case of CIT v. Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 306, that income from securities can also come under section 28 as income from business. This judgment is very important. It analyses the judgment of the Supreme Court in United Commercial Bank Ltd.’s case [1957] 32 ITR 688, which has been followed by the Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank Ltd.’s case [1991] 187 ITR 541. It is true that once an income falls under section 18, it cannot come under section 28. However, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd.’s case [1965] 57 ITR 306, income from securities treated as trading assets can come under section 28. In the present case, the Department has treated income from securities under section 28.

Posted in All Judgements, Supreme Court