Search Results For: Undisclosed Income


PCIT vs. Binod Kumar Singh (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 22, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 26, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 6, 68, 69: Law explained on (i) when an Indian citizen or person of Indian origin can be said to have come on "visit to India" so as to qualify as a "Non Resident" u/s 6(6) r.w. CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2003 & (ii) whether amount found deposited in a foreign bank is taxable in India u/s 68 & 69 if the assessee is a "Not Ordinary Resident"

In that view of the matter, clause (a) of Section 6(1) would not apply. It is true that in absence of clause (b) of Explanation 1 below Section 6(1) of the Act, the assessee would have fulfilled the requirements of clause (c) of Section 6(1). However, as per the explanation, if the assessee comes to a visit in India, the requirement of stay in India in the previous year would be 182 days and not 60 days as contained in clause (c). These facts would demonstrate that the assessee had migrated to a foreign country where he had set up his business interest. He pursued his higher education abroad, engaged himself in various business activities and continued to live there with his family. His whatever travels to India, would be in the nature of visits, unless contrary brought on record

DCIT vs. Dipendu Bapalal Shah (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 19, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 9, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 HSBC Black Money: The assessee being non-resident is not liable to tax in respect of money lying in the foreign country unless the AO bring something on record to show that assessee has not fulfilled the test of taxability of non-resident under the provisions of the Act

We found that CIT(A) as dealt with the issue threadbare and after applying judicial pronouncements laid down by High Court and Supreme Court reached to the conclusion that assessee being non-resident is not liable to tax in respect of money lying in the foreign country unless AO bring something on record to show that assessee has not fulfilled the test of taxability of non-resident under the provisions of the Act. The detailed finding so recorded by CIT(A) are as per material on record and do not require any interference on our part

M/s Shah Realtors vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 25, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 21, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
'On Money': The fact that the assessee has sold flats at an undervaluation does not mean that he has understated the consideration and earned undisclosed 'on money'. The mere presumption that excess price could have been charged is not a ground for coming to the conclusion that the assessee did charge a higher price. The burden of proving such understatement or concealment is on the Revenue (All important judgements considered)

The case law relied by Assessing Officer in ITO Vs Diamond Investment and Properties ITA No. 5537/M/2009 is not applicable on the facts of the present case. In case of Diamond Investment and Properties (supra), the flats were sold to the related parties was much lower than the price charged from the other parties. However, there is no allegation of related parties’ transaction in the present case. The coordinate bench of Tribunal Neelkamal Realtor & Erectors India (P0 Ltd (2013) 38 taxmann.com 195 held that when the assessee offered an explanation for charging lower price in respect of some of flats sold by it and Assessing Officer without controverting such explanation made addition to income of assessee by applying rate of another flat sold by it, Assessing Officer was not justified in his action. Similar view was taken by another bench of Tribunal in ACIT Vs Rustom Soil Sethna

Umbrella Projects Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 23, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 6, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: If the assessee has discharged the initial onus regarding the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness, the onus shifts to the AO to bring material or evidence to discredit the same. The fact that the shareholders did not respond to s. 133(6) summons is not sufficient to draw an adverse inference. There must be material to implicate the assessee in a collusive arrangement with person who are accommodation entry providers

In view of the above documents and evidences filed by the assessee, we are of the opinion that these are sufficient to discharge its initial onus regarding the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness as required under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee having discharged its onus, it was upon the AO to bring material or evidence to discredit the same. In the present case, from the assessment order, it is evident that no adverse material is available with the AO

Cornerstone Property Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Bangalore)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 9, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 3, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus Share Capital: Share premium received can be assessed as undisclosed income if (a) directors are allotted shares at par while others are allotted at premium, (b) the high premium is not justified by a valuation report, (c) the high premium is not supported by the financials, (d) based on financials the value of shares is less and no genuine investor would invest at the premium, (e) there are discrepancies & abnormal features which show transaction as "made up" to camouflage real purpose

The argument of the assessee that the provisions of Sec.56(1)(viib) of the Act does not apply to the case on hand for the year under consideration as it has been introduced by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013 is a misplaced one. From a reading of the order of assessment, it is clear that the Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of Sec. 68 of the Act. This leads us to the question of whether the provisions of Sec. 68 of the Act can be invoked for the nature of transactions involved in the case, where sums of money are credited in the name of share premium. This question has been addressed by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pragati Financial Management Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT in C.A. 887 & 998 of 2016 and others dt.7.3.2017. In its order (supra) on the issue of whether enquiry under Section 68 of the Act can be carried out for examining the genuineness of the share premium transaction, the Hon’ble High Court held that Sec. 68 of the Act can be invoked to conduct enquiry on the genuineness of share premium transactions

ACIT vs. Katrina (Kaif) Rosemary Turcotte (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68: In the absence of any direct evidence demonstrating that the assessee received cash payment, no addition can be made merely on presumption and surmises and on estimate basis. For making the addition on account of cash component, it is the duty of the AO to bring on record corroborative evidence to establish the fact that the entries made in the seized document were correct

The Assessing Officer has not brought on record any clinching evidence on the basis of any enquiry made by him to demonstrate that the assessee has actually received any cash as per the evaluation sheet from Matrix. Therefore, in the absence of any direct evidence demonstrating that the assessee had received cash payment from Matrix, as shown in the evaluation sheet, no addition can be made merely on presumption and surmises and on estimate basis. For making the addition on account of cash component, it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to bring on record corroborative evidence to establish the fact that the entries made in the evaluation sheet were correct

CIT vs. Lavanya Land Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 23, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 29, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 69C/ 153C: An admission of the assessee which is retracted cannot be the basis of addition. The allegations made by the authorities have to be supported by actual cash passing hands. The addition cannot be sustained in the absence of material which would conclusively show that huge amounts revealed from the seized documents are transferred from one side to another and if the Revenue did not bring on record a single statement of the vendors of the land in different villages and if none of the sellers has been examined to substantiate the claim of the Revenue that extra cash has actually changed hands

After reproducing Section 69C and adverting to the fact that Dilip Dherai has retracted his statement, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that merely on the strength of the alleged admission in the statement of Dilip Dherai, the additions could not have been made. The concurrent findings of fact would demonstrate that the essential ingredients of Section 69C of the IT Act enabling the additions were not satisfied. This is not a case of ‘no explanation’. Rather, the Tribunal concluded that the allegations made by the authorities are not supported by actual cash passing hands. The entire decision is based on the seized documents and no material has been referred which would conclusively show that huge amounts revealed from the seized documents are transferred from one side to another. In that regard, the Tribunal found that the Revenue did not bring on record a single statement of the vendors of the land in different villages. None of the sellers has been examined to substantiate the claim of the Revenue that extra cash has actually changed hands

Pr. CIT vs. Jatin Investment Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 18, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 31, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus capital gains: A transaction cannot be treated as fraudulent if the assessee has furnished documentary proof and proved the identity of the purchasers and no discrepancy is found. The AO has to exercise his powers u/s 131 & 133(6) to verify the genuineness of the claim and cannot proceed on surmises

The assessee has adduced the documentary evidences in support of the transaction in question. The identity of the purchasers of the shares was established as it was borne on the record of the Income Tax Department. The purchasers have PAN card as well. Turning to the shares which were sold by the appellant as per its version, there is no evidence or material to even suggest, as pointed out as on behalf of the assessee, that the cheques directly or indirectly emanated from the assessee so that it could be said that the assessee’s own money was brought back in the guise of sale proceeds of the shares. Though, the purchasers of the shares could not be examined by the AO, since they were existing on the file of the Income Tax Department and their Income Tax details were made available to the AO, it was equally the duty of the AO to have taken steps to verify their assessment records and if necessary to also have them examined by the respective AOs having jurisdiction over them which has not been done by him

Sharad U. Mishra vs. DCIT (ITAT Jaipur)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 25, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 11, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 143(3): An addition towards income cannot be made merely on the basis of the statement of a third party that an amount has been paid to the assessee in the absence of conclusive evidence

Now the issue which requires our consideration is whether the addition can be sustained solely on the basis of the statement of Shri Hanuman Yadav, when there is no material placed on record that Shri Hanuman Yadav has made any claim against the assessee in any court of law seeking cancellation of sale deed or filing a recovery suit. The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal after following the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court under the similar circumstances in Union of India vs. T. R. Verma 1957 SC 882 and Kishan Chand Chellaram vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) has held in the case of Ghanshyam Das Agarwal vs. ITO in ITA No. 1161/JP/2010 that in the absence of any conclusive evidence the document could not have been disbelieved. The D/R could not point out any binding precedent wherein it has been held that the oral statement would over ride the documentary evidence. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Ghanshyam Das Agarwal vs. ITO in ITA No. 1161/JP/2010, we are of the view that the AO was not justified to make addition solely on the basis of the statement of Shri Hanuman Yadav when there was a registered sale deed and more particularly when the maker of statement has not challenged the sale deed before any court of law. It is also not placed on record whether the sale deed was executed under coercion.

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

Top