Category: Tribunal

Archive for the ‘Tribunal’ Category


Rajkumar B. Agarwal vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 4, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 2, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Capital Gains From Penny Stocks: The assessee completed paper-trail by producing contract notes for purchase and sale of shares. of PIL. Mere furnishing of contract notes etc does not inspire any confidence in the light of facts. Test of human probability should be applied and apparent should be ignored to unearth the harsh reality (Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 (SC) & Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) applied)



The entire position which thus emerges is that PIL is a penny stock company, which fact got established from enquiries conducted by BSE and SEBI. Not only the DSP shares and Securities Ltd. and Galaxy Broking Ltd. were fined for manipulating the prices of shares of PIL, even the broker from whom the assessee allegedly purchased the shares was suspended and debarred from acting as a broker by SEBI and further the broker to whom such shares were sold, was also warned by SEBI for manipulating the prices of different shares during the relevant period. There is doubt that the assessee completed paper-trail by producing contract notes for the purchase and sale of shares of PIL. In our considered opinion, mere furnishing of contract notes etc. and more specifically when seen in the background of the above noted facts, does not inspire any confidence and cannot be a ground to delete an addition, which is otherwise made on the solid bedrock of detailed enquiries

Pankaj Agarwal & Sons (HUF) vs. ITO (ITAT Chennai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 6, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 2, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Capital Gains From Penny Stocks: Plea that opportunity to cross-examine the witness was not given & investigation report was not furnished is not relevant if assessee unable to successfully controvert findings of the AO and such argument was never made before the lower authorities

The company in which the assessees had purchased the equity shares had no creditability and no prudent investor would make such investment. The motive of the price manipulation is only to bring out their black money as legitimately earned Long Term Capital Gain for which exemption U/s.10(38) of the Act is available

M/s. Deekay Gears vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 16, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 2, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 251(1)(a): The CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to permit an assessee to withdraw an appeal and to dismiss it in limine. Notwithstanding the request seeking withdrawal of the appeal, the CIT(A) is obliged and duty bound under the Act to decide the appeal on merits

This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act

DCIT vs. Kargwal Products P. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 26, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 29, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147 Reopening for taxing Bogus share capital: Even in a s. 143(1) intimation, the AO is not entitled to reopen on the ground that the assessee has received "huge share premium" which was not "examined" by the AO. The AO cannot reopen in the absence of tangible material that shows income has escaped assessment

The assessment was processed under section 143(1). The assessment was reopened on 29.03.2014 without four year from the end of relevant Assessment Year. We have noted that the Assessing Officer nowhere mentioned in the reasons recorded that any tangible material either from assessment record or from other source has come in the notice of Assessing Officer for his reason to believe that any income has escape assessment. Therefore, the basic requirement of reopening of the assessee i.e. reason to believe was not fulfilled at the time of recording the reasons of reopening

Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Hyderabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 10, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 17, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10, 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 28(iv) /68: Bogus share premium: The fact that the premium is abnormally high as per test of human probabilities is not sufficient. The AO has to lift the corporate veil & determine whether any benefit is passed on to the shareholders/directors. Directions issued to AO to establish whether assessee company was used as a vehicle to pass on the benefit to shareholders/directors

We also cannot presume or apply test of human probabilities, we are dealing with the business transaction, it has to be based on cogent material. Considering the whole situation, in our considered view, the AO/CIT(A) have restricted themselves by stopping the investigation based on circumstantial evidence and applying test of human probabilities. In order to lift the corporate veil for the purpose of determining whether any benefit is passed on to the shareholders/directors, they have to bring on record proper evidence/cogent material

Doshi Accounting Services Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad Special Bench)

COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 26, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 29, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08, 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Guidelines specified to ensure expeditious hearing of cases referred to Special Benches and Third Members: Inordinate delay in fixation of hearing of Special Bench & Third Member cases is inappropriate and contrary to the scheme of the Act. It also reduces the efficacy and utility of the mechanism to deal with important matters

We share the anguish of the learned counsel. The sequence of events, as set out above, does clearly shows inordinate delay in the special bench case being taken up. It appears that despite specific requisition by the learned Judicial Member and for the reasons best known to the persons concerned, the Registry has not taken care to do the necessary follow up and ensure that the matter is listed for hearing expeditiously, so as to ensure timely disposal of appeals referred to the special benches. The importance of timely disposal of special bench cases and Third Member cases can hardly be over-emphasised. These cases deserve to be taken up on top priority basis. We are of the view that such an inordinate delay in fixation of hearing of special benches cases, particularly when stay is granted, is not only inappropriate and contrary to the scheme of the Act, but it does reduce the efficacy and utility of the mechanism of special benches to deal with important matters on which there is divergence of views by the division benches or which are otherwise of wider ramifications and national importance. Similarly, inordinate delays in disposal of Third Member cases, by itself, makes the expression of dissenting opinion less effective and useful. We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to formulate the following guidelines with a view to ensure the expeditious hearing of cases referred to Special Benches and Third Members

ACIT vs. Karam Chand Rubber Industries (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 12, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 22, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Purchases: The fact that the vendors are not available at the given address is not sufficient to treat the purchases as bogus if the assessee has discharged primary onus and substantiated the purchases through documentary evidence and payment is made through banking channels. None of these documents have been proved to be false or untrue and thus the initial burden cast on the assessee was duly discharged

It is an admitted fact that during the course of search nothing adverse was found from the premises of the assessee regarding the purchases made from the four parties concerned. Only during post search enquiry it was found that those four parties are not available at the given address. However, it is a fact that the payments have been made through banking channel and the assessee had substantiated the purchases by providing documents such as purchase invoices, copy of the ledger accounts, evidences for having made payments through banking channels, C Form issued to the suppliers, copy of VAT return duly reflecting the said purchases, etc

Vinod Soni vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 10, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194-IA TDS: The exemption of Rs. 50 lakh in s. 194-IA(2) is applicable w.r.t. the amount related to each transferee and not with reference to the amount as per sale deed. Each transferee is a separate income tax entity and the law has to be applied with reference to each transferee as an individual transferee / person

Each transferee is a separate income tax entity therefore, the law has to be applied with reference to each transferee as an individual transferee / person. It is also noted that Section 194-IA was introduced by Finance Act, 2013 effective from 1.6.2013. It is also noted from the Memorandum explaining the provisions brought out alongwith the Finance Bill wherein it was stated that “in order to reduce the compliance burden on the small tax payers, it is further proposed that no deduction of tax under this provision shall be made where the total amount of consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than fifty lakhs rupees.”

ACIT vs. Subhodh Menon (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 7, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(vii) is a counter evasion mechanism to prevent money laundering of unaccounted income & does not apply to bona fide business transaction done out of business exigency. The difference between alleged fair market value of share and the subscribed value of shares cannot be assessed as income u/s 56(2)(vii)(c) (CBDT Circulars & case laws referred)

Section 56(2)(vii) does not apply to bonafide business transaction. As explained hereinabove, shares were issued by the company to comply with a covenant in the loan agreement with State Bank of India which required the promoters to increase the total net worth of the company to Rs. 150 crores by 31 March, 2010. Therefore, the shares were issued by the company for a bonafide reason and as a matter of business exigency. Circular No.1/2011 dated 6 April, 2011 issued by the CBDT explaining the provision of section 56(2)(vii) specifically states that the section was inserted as a counter evasion mechanism to prevent money laundering of unaccounted income. In paragraph 13.4 thereof where it is stated that “the intention was not to tax transactions carried out in the normal course of business or trade, the profit of which are taxable under the specific head of income”

In Re Gabs Investments Pvt Ltd & Ajanta Pharma Ltd (NCLT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: August 30, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 12, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
GAAR: Objections of the Dept that the scheme of amalgamation is a deliberate measure to avoid tax burden and is an ‘Impermissible Avoidance Agreement’ because it results in avoidance of Divided Distribution Tax (DDT), tax on business profits and MAT u/s ll5JB etc has merit. The scheme is not in public interest & cannot be sanctioned

Since Income Tax department (IT) has raised strong objections about tax benefit, tax avoidance, tax loss as discussed above, we are of the opinion that it would be advisable to settle the important /crucial issue of huge tax liability before sanctioning the scheme by the Tribunal rather than disputing the same at a later stage after the scheme is sanctioned by the Tribunal. It is mandatory as per section 230 (5) of the Companies Act, 2013, a notice under sub section (3) along with all the documents in such form shall also be sent to central government , Income Tax Authorities, RBI, SEBI, ROC, stock exchanges, OL, CCI and other Sectoral regulators or Authorities for their representations. In response to the notice received as per above section the Income Tax Department has raised valid observation/objections as detailed above, we find merit in the objections raised by Income Tax Department and we are also inclined to agree with the objections raised

Top