Author: shreesh

Author Archive


DSP Investment Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 8, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 20, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: Non-consideration by the ITAT of a judgement of the co-ordinate Bench makes the order a non-speaking one and breaches the principles of natural justice

In fact the impugned order of the Tribunal ought to have dealt with its decision in J. K. Investors (supra) and considered its applicability to the present facts. In view of the fact that the impugned order of the Tribunal does not deal with its decision in J. K. Investors (supra) relied upon by the assessee in support of its submission as recorded in the impugned order itself makes the impugned order a nonspeaking order and, therefore, in breach of principles of natural justice. The substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue

Pine Tree Finserve Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 22, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 20, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Mere non-introduction of interest-bearing funds is not sufficient to conclude that gains from sale of shares are not business income

There are various factors such as frequency, volume, entry in the books of accounts, nature of funds used, holding period etc. which are relevant in deciding the true nature of transactions and no single factor is conclusive. Thus, mere non-introduction of interest bearing funds will not alone determine the nature of the transactions. The impugned order, after analyzing the statement of capital gains which were available before it, came to the conclusion that most of the shares have been sold within 30 days of its purchase and upheld the order of the CIT(A)

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 16, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 15, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08 to 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 220(6): An order disposing off a stay application has to objectively consider the prima facie case on merits, financial hardship and balance of convenience and give reasons for the rejection

We find that neither the Assessing Officer in the impugned orders dated 13th October, 2015 nor the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) in the order dated 25.2.2016 has dealt with the Petitioner’s primary contentions that the amounts received as lease premium and shown as deposits, cannot be taxed as income. This Court has time again set out parameters to be kept in mind while considering the stay application under Section 220(6) of the Act. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has completely misunderstood the scope of her powers and issues to be considered while disposing of the stay applications. In the above view, we set aside the orders dated 13th October, 2015 of the Assessing Officer and order dated 25th February, 2016… However, the Petitioner’s stay application is restored to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) for fresh disposal in accordance with law and after considering, prima facie, merits of the Petitioner’s case and in accordance with law

CIT vs. Hemal Raju Shete (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 29, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 45/ 48: Deferred consideration dependent on a contingency does not accrue unless the contingency has occurred and is not liable to capital gains tax in year of transfer

The contention of the Revenue that the impugned order is seeking to tax the amount on receipt basis by not having brought it to tax in the subject assessment year, is not correct. This for the reason, that the amounts to be received as deferred consideration under the agreement could not be subjected to tax in the assessment year 2006-07 as the same has not accrued during the year. As pointed out above, accrual would be a right to receive the amount and the assessee alongwith its co-owners have not under the agreement dated 25th January, 2006 obtained a right to receive Rs.20 crores or any specified part thereof in the subject assessment year. In the above view there could be no occasion to bring the maximum amount of Rs. 20 crores, which could be received as deferred consideration to tax in the subject assessment year as it had not accrued to the assessee.

Top