Category: Tribunal

Archive for the ‘Tribunal’ Category


COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 13, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 17, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): In the professional field there are innovative ways visualized by professionals to make themselves visible in the professional circle and to build their own professional profile for generating higher and value-added business such as sponsoring seminars, becoming knowledge partners, setting up prizes and awards, creating competitive award ceremonies, hosting vibrant summits etc. The way professionals promote themselves is changing very fast and benefits of such expenditure are huge and wide

The level at which the assessee is carrying on the profession, perhaps, he might not have thought it proper to increases visibility by attending the conferences, seminars et cetera. He has different vision of carrying himself in the professional field to increases visibility and social status. He thought fit to set up a scholarship to Indian students in Oxford University. Thus, in the present case definitely there is a nexus between the expenditure incurred by the assessee and the professional services rendered by the assessee. He has also shown that the student to moving the scholarship has been granted has helped him in famous case of Vodafone represented by him

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: August 14, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 17, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 1998-99
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Low Tax Effect Appeals: Though CBDT Circular dated 8th August 2019, enhancing the monetary limits for Dept appeals, states that the "modifications shall come into effect from the date of issue of the Circular", it must be interpreted to mean that the enhanced limits apply not only to appeals to be filed in future but also to appeals pending for disposal as on now. It is an appreciable goodwill gesture by the Govt, for so many taxpayers, on the eve of this Independence Day and offering them freedom from the prolonged mental agony and uncertainty of litigation

The circular was issued on Thursday the 8th August 2019, and within two working days and the long weekend, today on 14th August 2019, all the appeals stand disposed of. It’s only a team effort and whole hearted cooperation of all the stakeholders that can enable us to so speedily implement taxpayer friendly initiatives of the Government of India. The taxpayer relief involved in these appeals, including interest and the other corollaries, is estimated to be well over Rs 350 crores. The lead case before us is an appeal filed over fifteen years ago by the Income Tax Officer and it deals with an assessment year which pertains to the period over twenty years ago. Yet, the matter had not reached the finality and the revenue’s challenge to the relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) had remained undecided. That is nothing but prolonged agony of uncertainty to the taxpayers. It is indeed an appreciable goodwill gesture by the Government, for so many taxpayers, on the eve of this Independence Day and offering them freedom from the prolonged mental agony and uncertainty of litigation

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 9, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 17, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C + S. 10(38) Bogus Penny Stocks Capital Gains: (i) Though the 3rd Proviso to s. 50C, which provides a safe harbour of 5%, applies w.e.f. 01.04.2019, it must be interpreted to apply since the insertion of s. 50C (01.04.2003) because it is curative and removes an incongruity and avoids undue hardship to assesseess (ii) LTCG from penny stocks cannot be treated as bogus if the documentation is in order and no fault is found by the AO

The insertion of third proviso (noted above) to Section 50C of the Act is declaratory and curative in nature. That is, the third provisoto Section 50C of the Act relates to computation of value of property as explained by us above, hence it is not a substantive amendment, it is only a procedural amendment therefore the Coordinate Benches of the ITAT used to ignore the variation up to 10%, therefore, the said amendment should be retrospective.Quite clearly therefore, even when the statute does not specifically state so, such amendments, in the light of the detailed discussions above, can only be treated as retrospective and effective from the date related statutory provisions was introduced. Viewed thus, the third proviso to Section50C should be treated as curative in nature and with retrospective effect from 1st April 2003, i.e. the date effective from which Section 50C was introduced.

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 14, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 14, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(38) Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks (282x gain in 12 months): The meticulous paper work of routing the transaction through banking channel is futile because the results are altogether beyond human probabilities. Neither in the past nor in the subsequent years, assessee has indulged into any such investment having huge windfall. Had the assessee been so intelligent qua the intricacies of the share market, he would have definitely undertaken such risk taking activities in the past or future by making such investment in unknown stock. It is a sham transaction to convert undisclosed income into disclosed by evading tax under the garb of LTCG in connivance with entry providers (Pooja Ajmani & Udit Kalra 176 DTR 249 (Del) followed

The contention of the assessee that he has purchased the shares through banking channel and as such, when the purchase is genuine then sale cannot be questioned, is not tenable because the entire transaction of sale and purchase is to be seen in entirety in the light of the attending circumstances particularly when share of Rs.10 is sold after a period of one year at 282 times which is otherwise improbable in the ordinary course of business.

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 2, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 10, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08, 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus Share Capital Premium: The test of human probabilities cannot be applied to business transactions. Share premium is collected as per the understanding between the parties. The AO cannot treat the share premium as unexplained cash credit only because the same is not commensurate with the income and financial strength of the assessee. The AO cannot reach this conclusion without further investigation and bringing material on record (All imp judgements referred)

The share premium has been collected as per the understanding reached between both the parties. We notice that the AO has not mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee has failed to satisfy the three main ingredients in the context of sec.68 of the Act. His only case was that the assessee did not substantiate the quantum of share premium collected. We have noticed that the assessee has furnished a valuation report in order to justify the share premium, even though the same has been rejected by the AO. However, the important point is that the doubt of the assessing officer on the quantum of share premium cannot be a ground for making addition u/s 68 of the Act.

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 13, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 3, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Suppression of profit/ fictitious loss in stocks/ derivatives by way of Client Code Modification (CCM): CCM within 1% is absolutely normal. By no stretch of imagination can any AO consider a transaction on the Stock Exchange as income of a person other than the one who has either actually received monies in his bank account (in case of profit) and/or paid any monies from his bank account (in case of losses). The AO has to show that the losses were purchased and the party was given cheque or cash payment in view of such favours

The broker, through whom the assessee carried on share transactions, were also not imposed any penalty. No co-relation between the assessee on the one hand and the other parties on the other hand has been brought on record to co-relate that the parties to whom the alleged profits or loss is supposed to have been diverted to reduce the taxable income of the assessee, has been brought on record to show that there was any collusion with each other and were known to each, so that one party diverted its profit or loss to the other parties. Even nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the said losses were purchased and the party were given cheque or cash payment in view of such favour

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 17, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 3, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(vii): The stand of the Dept that in the case of an individual, a "HUF" is not a "relative" and that while a gift by the individual to the HUF is exempt, a gift from the HUF to its member is taxable u/s 56(2)(vii) is not correct. S. 56 (2) (vii) provides that the members of the 'HUF' are to be taken as "relatives". The converse is not provided because on first principles, amounts received by a member from the 'HUF' cannot be said to be income of the member exigible to taxation. Terming by the PCIT of decisions of the Tribunal as "incorrect" tantamounts to judicial indiscipline and will lead to chaos

As per the provisions of section 56 (2) (vi i) of the Act , though the members of the ‘HUF’ are to be taken relatives of the ‘HUF’ for the purpose of the said sect ion, however, the converse is not true that is to say that ‘HUF’ is not a relative of the individual member as per meaning of relative given in the case if individual under explanation to sect ion 56(2)(vi i) of the Act

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 15, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 13, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2) MA: If an appeal against the order of the ITAT has been filed in the High Court and the same has been admitted by the High Court, a Miscellaneous Application u/s 254(2) seeking rectification and recall of the order is not maintainable. The MA is maintainable only if the appeal is pending and has not been admitted (RW Promotions 376 ITR 126 (Bom) distinguished, Muni Seva Ashram 38 TM.com 110 (Guj) followed)

Considering the totality of the facts involved in the present case and in view of the decisions cited hereinabove, we are of the view that in the present case since the appeal against the order of the Tribunal has already been admitted and a substantial question of law has been framed by the Hon’ble High Court, the Tribunal cannot proceed with the Miscellaneous Application u/s 254(2) of the Act

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 29, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 6, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Capital vs. Revenue Receipt: Damages received for breach of development agreement are capital in nature & not chargeable to tax. The only right that accrues to the assessee who complains of breach is right to file a suit for recovery of damages from the defaulting party. A breach of contract does not give rise to any debt. A right to recover damages is not assignable because it is not a chose-in-action. Such a mere 'right to sue' is neither a capital asset u/s 2(14) nor is it capable of being transferred & is therefore not chargeable under u/s 45 of the Act (All imp judgements referred)

Despite the definition of the expression capital asset in the widest possible terms in section 2(14), a right to a capital asset must fall within the expression ‘property of any kind’ and must not fall within the exceptions. Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act which uses the expression ‘property of any kind’ in the context of transferability makes an exception in the case of mere right to sue. The decisions there under make it abundantly clear that the right to sue for damages is not an actionable claim. It cannot be assigned and its transfer is opposed to public policy. As such it will not be quite correct to say that such a right constituted capital asset which in turn has to be an interest in ‘property of any kind.’

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 28, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 6, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 292BB: If the assessee objects to the AO's jurisdiction but his AR later conveys no-objection, it means that the assessee has withdrawn his objection. Submission that the AR had no authority to convey no-objection and cannot bind the assessee is not acceptable. Once the assessee empowers his AR to appear before authorities, all of the AR's concessions are binding on the assessee (Himalayan Coop Group Hsg Soc 2015 7 SCC 373 distinguished)

We are confronted with a situation in which the assessee did raise objection before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings itself that the notice was not properly served upon him. However, the AR of the assessee appearing before the AO, gave his ‘no objection’ for furthering the assessment proceedings. When the second limb of the ld. AR not objecting to the continuation of assessment proceedings despite service of notice on the assessee’s manager is considered in conjunction with the first limb of the assessee initially objecting to the service of notice, the inference which follows is that the assessee did raise objection initially but withdrew the same before the AO