Month: December 2016

Archive for December, 2016


Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 5, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 6, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1978-79
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(19A): Though principles of res judicata do not apply, the Dept should not endlessly pursue matters which have attained finality in earlier years. Principles of interpretation of statutes explained. Interplay between s. 10(19A), s. 23 of the Income-tax Act & s. 5(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act explained

Though principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings and each assessment year is an independent year in itself, yet, in our view, in the absence of any valid and convincing reason, there was no justification on the part of the Revenue to have pursued the same issue again to higher Courts. There should be a finality attached to the issue once it stands decided by the higher Courts on merits. This principle, in our view, applies to this case on all force against the Revenue

IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 21, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 6, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A Rule 8D: The fact that the AO did not expressly record his dissatisfaction with the assessee's working does not mean that he cannot make the disallowance. The AO need not pay lip service and formally record dissatisfaction. It is sufficient if the order shows due application of mind to all aspects

Undoubtedly, the language of Section 14A presupposes that the AO has to adduce some reasons if he is not satisfied with the amount offered by way of disallowance by the assessee. At the same time Section 14A (2) as indeed Rule 8D(i) leave the AO equally with no choice in the matter inasmuch as the statute in both these provisions mandates that the particular methodology enacted should be followed. In other words, the AO is under a mandate to apply the formulae as it were under Rule 8D because of Section 14A(2). If in a given case, therefore, the AO is confronted with a figure which, prima facie, is not in accord with what should approximately be the figure on a fair working out of the provisions, he is but bound to reject it. In such circumstances the AO ordinarily would express his opinion by rejecting the disallowance offered and then proceed to work out the methodology enacted

CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 24, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 5, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S 50C does not apply to transfer of land and building, being leasehold property

The Revenue has not preferred any appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Atul Puranik (supra). Thus, it could be inferred that it has been accepted. Our Court in DIT vs. Credit Agricole Indosuez 377 ITR 102 (dealing with Tribunal order) and the Apex Court in UOI vs. Satish P. Shah 249 ITR 221 (dealing with High Court order) has laid down the salutary principle that where the Revenue has accepted the decision of the Court/Tribunal on an issue of law and not challenged it in appeal, then a subsequent decision following the earlier decision cannot be challenged

Coronation Agro Industries Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: November 23, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 5, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: It is a regular practice for the broker to make modifications in the client code after the purchase and sale of securities. The mere fact that there is a client code modification prima facie does not mean that any income has escaped assessment. it appears to be case of 'reason to suspect' and not 'reason to believe'

We note that the reasons in support of the impugned notice accept the fact that as a matter of regular business practice, a broker in the stock exchange makes modifications in the client code on sale and / or purchase of any securities, after the trading is over so as to rectify any error which may have occurred while punching the orders. The reasons do not indicate the basis for the Assessing Officer to come to reasonable belief that there has been any escapement of income on the ground that the modifications done in the client code was not on account of a genuine error, originally occurred while punching the trade. The material available is that there is a client code modification done by the Assessee’s broker but there is no link from there to conclude that it was done to escape assessment of a part of its income. Prima facie, this appears to be a case of reason to suspect and not reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

Top