Home › 2018 › August › Page 4
Month: August 2018

Archive for August, 2018

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 6, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 4, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Article 5 Permanent Establishment (PE): The duration of 12 months specified to constitute a PE is activity specific qua the site, construction, assembly or installation project. Preparatory work for tendering of contract cannot be included in the period. The activity qua the project comes to an end when the work gets completed and the responsibility of the contractor with respect to that activity comes to end. Onus is heavily upon the revenue to establish that that assessee’s activity had crossed the threshold period of 12 months

Auxiliary and preparatory activity, purely for tendering purpose before entering of the contract and without carrying out any activity of economic substance or active work qua that project cannot be construed as carrying out any activity of installation or construction. Clause (g) of Article 5(2) ostensibly refers to activity based PE, because the main emphasis is on “where such site project or activity continues for a period of more than 12 months.” The duration of 12 months per se is activity specific qua the site, construction, assembly or installation project. If the contract would not have been awarded, then any kind of preparatory work for tendering of contract cannot be reckoned for carrying out any activity as stipulated in this clause. Hence, in this case all such preparatory work for tendering purpose before entering into contract cannot be counted while calculating the threshold period.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 30, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 3, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: If copies of the share application form, share allotment Register and Bank Statements showing receipt of funds are on record and if all the shareholders have filed Affidavits declaring the fact that they are investing in the assessee-Company by issuing of cheques from their Accounts, the assessee has fulfilled the requirement of proving genuineness of the transaction, identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders/investors and addition cannot be made u/s 68

So far as the identity is concerned, we find that the persons who invested in the shares of the respondent-assessee had PAN numbers allotted to them which was made available by the respondent to the Assessing Officer. Besides, the shareholders had also filed Affidavits before the Assessing Officer pointing out that they had invested in the shares of the respondent assessee out of their own bank accounts. Copies of acknowledgement of Return of Income of the shareholders was also filed. The respondent also requested the Assessing Officer to summon the shareholders. These evidences have not been shown to be incorrect. Therefore, this objection with regard to identity of the shareholders not being established does not survive

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 12, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 3, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(viib) vs. s. 68: Any premium received by a Company, in which the public does not have substantial interest, on sale of shares, in excess of its face value, can be treated as income from other sources u/s 56(2)(viib). This is not controlled by s. 68 which provides that if the assessee does not provide a satisfactory explanation for the credit, the amount can be assessed as income. If S. 68 is applicable, and the proviso is not satisfied, then the entire amounts credited to the books would be treated as income. If satisfactory explanation is offered as to the source, then the premium paid as revealed from the books will be brought to tax as income from other sources

Any premium received by a Company on sale of shares, in excess of its face value; if the Company is not one in which the public has substantial interest, would be treated as income from other sources, as seen from Section 56(2) (viib) of the Act, which we do not think can be controlled by the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. Section 68 on the other hand, as substituted with the provisos, treats any credit in the books of accounts, even by way of allotment of shares; for which no satisfactory explanation is offered, to be liable to income-tax. Clause (viib) of Section 56(2) is triggered at the stage of computation of income itself when the share application money received, from a resident, by a Company, in which the public are not substantially interested; is above the face value. Then the aggregate consideration received for the shares as exceeds the fair market value will be included as income from other sources. However, when the resident investor is not able to explain the nature and source for the credit seen in the books of accounts of the Company or the explanation offered is not satisfactory then the entire credit would be charged to income tax for that previous year.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 18, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 3, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IA: There is a difference between "derived from the undertaking" and "derived from the business of the undertaking". The latter expression is wider than the former. Interest on fixed deposits from Bank and other interest are "derived from the business of the undertaking" and are eligible for deduction u/s 80-IA

Mr. Subramaniam, learned Counsel appearing in support of the appeal points out that Pandian Chemicals Ltd. (supra) was rendered in the context of Section 80HH of the Act and we are concerned with Section 80IA of the Act. It is particularly pointed out that there is a difference in the wording of the two sections as existing during the previous year relevant to the subject assessment year. Section 80HH of the Act grants deduction in respect of the profits and gains derived from industrial undertaking while Section 80IA of the Act as in force at the relevant time grants deduction of profits and gains derived from any business of an industrial undertaking. It is submitted that the above issue is no longer res integra as the issue stand concluded in its favour by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jagdishprasad M. Joshi, 318 ITR 420

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT: ,
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 7, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 2, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09, 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c)/ 292B: The AO cannot initiate penalty on the charge of 'concealment of particulars of income', but ultimately find the assessee guilty in the penalty order of 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' (and vice versa). In the same manner, he cannot be uncertain in the penalty order as to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by using slash between the two expressions. Such error is not procedural but goes to the root of the matter and is not saved by s. 292B. The error renders the penalty order unsustainable in law

When the AO is satisfied that it is a clear-cut case of concealment of particulars of income, he must specify it so in the notice at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings and also in the penalty order. The AO cannot initiate penalty on the charge of `concealment of particulars of income’, but ultimately find the assessee guilty in the penalty order of `furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’. In the same manner, he cannot be uncertain in the penalty order as to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by using slash between the two expressions. When the AO is satisfied that it is a clear-cut case of `furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’, he must again specify it so in the notice at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings and also in the penalty order. After initiating penalty on the charge of `furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’, he cannot impose penalty by finding the assessee guilty of `concealment of particulars of income’

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: July 16, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 2, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(38) Bogus long-term gains from penny stocks: The transaction cannot be treated as bogus until and unless a finding is given that the shares were acquired by the assessee from the person other than the broker claimed by the assessee. The enquiry conducted by the Investigation Indore is not a conclusive finding of fact in view of the fact that the shares were duly materialized & held in the d-mat account. Merely supplying of statement to the assessee at the fag end of the assessment proceedings is not sufficient to meet the requirement of giving an opportunity to cross examine. The AO cannot proceed on suspicion without any material evidence to controvert or disprove the evidence produced by the assessee

The decision of the AO holding the transaction as bogus and denying the claim of long term capital gain under section 10(38) of the Act is based on suspicion without any material evidence to controvert or disprove the evidence produced by the assessee. The enquiry conducted by the ITO Investigation Indore is not a conclusive finding of fact that the transaction of purchase of shares by the assessee is bogus particularly in view of admitted fact that these shares were held by the assessee and were duly materialized in the d-mat account. Therefore, until and unless a finding is given that the shares were acquired by the assessee from the person other than the broker claimed by the assessee, the mere suspicion how so ever strong may be, cannot be a basis of addition or disallowance of claim

Read more ›