Search Results For: B. V. Jhaveri


Samson Maritime Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 9, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 23, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): A disclosure of income, or withdrawal of claim for deduction, by the assessee after a specific s. 142(1)/ 143(2) notice is issued cannot be said to be a "voluntary disclosure" so as to avoid the levy of penalty. The argument that the earlier non-disclosure of income/ wrong claim for expenditure was due to "mistake" is not an acceptable defense (Mak Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) followed, Price Waterhouse Coopers 348 ITR 306 (SC) distinguished)

It is clear that so called mistake as claimed by the assessee, was only after notices dated 14th January, 2009 were issued under Sections 142 and 143 of the Act. It was only an attempt to preempt the Revenue finding out the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was voluntary disclosure.

Fiduciary Shares & Stock P. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 13, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 26, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
The amendment to Explanation to s. 73 by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015 is clarificatory in nature and operates retrospectively from 01.04.1977, being the date the Explanation to s. 73 was placed on the statute. Therefore, the loss incurred in share trading business by companies whose principal business is trading in shares will not be treated as speculation loss but as normal business loss and the same can be adjusted against income from business or other sources

The insertion of the amendment in the Explanation to section 73 of the Act by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, in our view, is curative and classificatory in nature. If the amendment is applied prospectively from A.Y. 2015-16, a piquant situation would arise that an assessee who has earned profit from purchase and sale of shares in A.Y. 2015-16 would be treated as normal business profit and not speculation business profit in view of the exception carried out by the amendment in Explanation to section 73 of the Act. In these circumstances, speculation business loss incurred by trading in shares in earlier years will not be allowed to be set off against such profit from purchase and sale of shares to such companies in A.Y. 2015-16. For this reason also, the amendment inserted to Explanation to section 73 of the Act by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 is to be applied retrospectively from the date of the insertion to Explanation to section 73 of the Act

CIT vs. Air Cargo Agents Association Of India (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 31, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 22, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Concept of mutuality in the light of Bangalore Club 350 ITR 509 (SC) explained

The contributions made by the members to the assessee cannot be a subject matter of tax merely because the part of its excess of income over expenditure is invested in mutual funds. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the dividend received from mutual funds have not been offered to tax by the assessee. The concept of Mutual concerns not being subject to tax is based on the principle of no man can profit out of itself. Therefore the test to be satisfied before an association can be classified as a Mutual concern are complete identity between the members i.e. contributors and the participants, the action of the mutual concern must be in furtherance of its objectives and there must be no scope of profiteering by the contributors from a fund. These tests have in fact been reiterated in Bangalore Club v/s. CIT 350 ITR 509 (SC)

Khubchandani Healthparks Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 10, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 22, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Law laid down in DCIT vs. Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co 373 ITR 661 does not mean that in cases where no assessment order is passed and assessment is completed by Intimation u/s 143(1), the sine qua non to show that there is "reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment" is not required. It is open to the assessee to challenge a notice issued u/s 148 as being without jurisdiction for absence of reason to believe even in case where the assessment has been completed earlier by Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act

It is settled position in law that the decision of the Court has to be read in the context of the facts involved therein and not on the basis of what logically flows therefrom as held by the Supreme Court in Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat, 1987(1) SCC 213. The Apex Court in Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd. (Supra)not having dealt with the issue of reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on the part of the Assessing Officer in cases where regular assessment was completed by Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, it would not be wise for us to infer that the Supreme Court in Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd. (Supra) has held that the condition precedent for the issue of reopening notice namely, reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, has no application where the assessment has been completed by Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act. The law on this point has been expressly laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (Supra) and the same would continue to apply and be binding upon us. Thus, even in cases where no assessment order is passed and assessment is completed by Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, the sine qua non to issue a reopening notice is reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In the above view, it is open for the petitioner to challenge a notice issued under Section 148 of the Act as being without jurisdiction for absence of reason to believe even in case where the Assessment has been completed earlier by Intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act

CIT vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , , ,
DATE: April 21, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 7, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 153A: No addition can be made in respect of an unabated assessment which has become final if no incriminating material is found during the search. An ICD is an "infrastructural facility" for s. 80-IA(4)

Once it is held that the assessment has attained finality, then the AO while passing the independent assessment order under Section 153A read with Section 143 (3) of the I.T. Act could not have disturbed the assessment / reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the materials gathered in the course of the proceedings under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act establish that the reliefs granted under the finalised assessment/ reassessment were contrary to the facts unearthed during the course of 153A proceedings

Top