Search Results For: Ex-parte


PCIT vs. Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 15, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 27, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus Purchases: Despite admission by the assessee that the purchases were mere accommodation entries, the entire expenditure cannot be disallowed. Only the profit embedded in the purchases covered by the bogus bills can be taxed. The GP rate disclosed by the assessee cannot be disturbed in the absence of incriminating material to discard the book results

The Department had not rejected the instance of the purchases since the sales out of purchase of such raw material was accounted for and accepted. With above position, the Tribunal applied the principle of taxing the profit embedded in such purchases covered by the bogus bills, instead of disallowing the entire expenditure. We do not find any error in the view of the Tribunal.

PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 5, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 6, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital/ premium: The practice of conversion of un-accounted money through cloak of Share Capital/Premium must be subjected to careful scrutiny especially in private placement of shares. Filing primary evidence is not sufficient. The onus to establish credit worthiness of the investor companies is on the assessee. The Assessee is under legal obligation to prove the receipt of share capital/premium to the satisfaction of the AO, failure of which, would justify addition of the said amount to the income of the Assessee

The practice of conversion of un-accounted money through the cloak of Share Capital/Premium must be subjected to careful scrutiny. This would be particularly so in the case of private placement of shares, where a higher onus is required to be placed on the Assessee since the information is within the personal knowledge of the Assessee. The Assessee is under a legal obligation to prove the receipt of share capital/premium to the satisfaction of the AO, failure of which, would justify addition of the said amount to the income of the Assessee.

ITO vs. Yadu Steels & Power Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 12, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 14, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: In the case of a private company, Onus is on assessee to prove identity, creditworthiness of subscribers and most importantly genuineness of transactions. Even if AO does not make inquiry, CIT(A) should do so. Relief cannot be given merely on basis of Ration Card, Share Application forms, Voter ID etc of the subscribers

Under Section 68 onus is upon assessee to prove three ingredients, i.e., identity and creditworthiness of credit entries. As to how onus can be discharged would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. It is expected of both sides – assessee and Ld.AO, to adopt reasonable approach. Assessee before us is a private limited company. It cannot issue shares in manner in which a public limited company does. It generally depend on persons known to its directors or shareholders directly or indirectly to buy its shares. Once monies are received and shares are issued, it is not as if share-subscribers and assessee lose touch with each other and become incommunicado. Onus thus is upon assessee to prove identity, creditworthiness of subscribers and most importantly genuineness of transactions under section 68

CIT vs. Viksit Engineering Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 26, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 5, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Capital Gains vs. Business Profits: Merely holding shares for a short period will not convert capital gain into business income. This would be contrary to be legislative mandate which itself provides that investment held for less than 12 months is to be termed as short term capital gain. If the assessee has two portfolios, one for "Investment" and other for "Trading" and if the investments are out of own funds and not borrowed funds, the gains have to be assessed as STCG

Thus two port-folios one for “Investment” and other for “Trading”. Besides for the earlier years the Revenue accepted the claim of short term capital gain. Thus the income has to be taxed as short term capital gain. We are of the view that respondent holding the shares for a short period, will not convert the capital gain into business income. This would be contrary to be legislative mandate which itself provides that when the investment is held for less than 12 months, it is to be termed as short term capital gain

PCIT vs. The Executor of Estate of Late Smt. Manjula A. Shah (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 11, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 24, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C Capital Gains: The valuation of the stamp authority cannot be adopted for the purpose of collecting capital gain tax in the hands of the assessee if there is a long gap between the date of execution of the MOU and the execution of a formal development agreement

The assessee can be taxed only on the gain which is oozing out from the sale consideration, thus, no adverse inference can be drawn while invoking the provision of section 50C of the Act. No evidence has been produced by the Revenue at any stage that the assessee actually received the value which was adopted by the stamp valuation authority.

PCIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 13, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 17, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A Rule 8D: The expression “does not form part of the total income” in s. 14A envisages that there should be an actual receipt of the income, which is not includible in the total income. If no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year, no disallowance u/s 14A can be made

The expression “does not form part of the total income” in Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 envisages that there should be an actual receipt of the income, which is not includible in the total income, during the relevant previous year for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the said income. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would not apply to the facts of this case as no exempt income was received or receivable during the relevant previous year

PCIT vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 4, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 30, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 69 Bogus Purchases: Purchases cannot be treated as Bogus if (a) they are duly supported by bills, (b) all payments are made by account payee cheques, (c) the supplier has confirmed the transactions, (d) there is no evidence to show that the purchase consideration has come back to the assessee in cash, (e) the sales out of purchases have been accepted & (f) the supplier has accounted for the purchases made by the assessee and paid taxes thereon

It can thus be seen that the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal came to concurrent conclusion that the purchases already made by the assessee from Raj Impex were duly supported by bills and payments were made by Account Payee cheque. Raj Impacts also confirmed the transactions. There was no evidence to show that the amount was recycled back to the assessee. Particularly, when it was found that the assessee the trader had also shown sales out of purchases made from Raj Impex which were also accepted by the Revenue, no question of law arises

PCIT vs. Texraj Realty P.Ltd (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 12, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 20, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68: Addition of undisclosed income cannot be made on the basis of (a) entries in dairy found during survey & (b) admission of director in s. 133A survey if assessee has filed a retraction and alleged that the entries/ statement were recorded under pressure. A s. 133A statement is merely information simplicitor and not evidence per se. Addition cannot be sustained if the Dept has not investigated the matter and find material to support the addition

The Tribunal in its detailed order noted that the directors during the course of survey, had retracted the statements by filing affidavits. They also claimed that the diaries were created under the pressure of the survey party. The Tribunal noted decision of the Supreme Court in case of Paul Mathews & Sons v Commissioner Of Income Tax reported in [2003] 263 ITR 101 (Ker) and of Supreme Court in case of The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.S.Khader Khan Son reported in (2012) 25 taxmann.com 413 (Supreme Court), in which, it was highlighted that the statement under section 133A of the Act was not on oath and would have at best a coroborative value

ITO vs. K. Ramakrishna Reddy (ITAT Hyderabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 29, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 11, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Long-term capital gains: As neither the statement of Mukhesh Choksi was provided to the assessee nor cross-examination was allowed and it was not even placed on record, the action of the AO in treating the LTCG and STCG as income from other sources was not warranted

A.O. was of the opinion that capital gains declared by the assessee was bogus. In this regard, A.O. also observed that he received information from the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai that M/s. Alliance Intermediaries and Network Pvt Ltd., one of the group companies of Mr. Mukesh Choksi, and also other companies of this group have provided accommodation entries to various persons, including the assessee. Though the assessee has furnished purchase bills of shares, cash receipts for payment of share purchases, account copies of M/s. Alliance Intermediaries and Network Pvt Ltd, the A.O. noticed that the Intermediary i.e., M/s. Alliance Intermediaries and Network Pvt Ltd., was proved to have neither affiliated to Mumbai Stock Exchange nor affiliated to National Stock Exchange which clearly indicates that the transactions were never carried out.

CIT vs. Sunita Dhadda (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 28, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 6, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 143(3)/ 292C: If the AO wants to rely upon documents found with third parties, the presumption u/s 292C against the assessee is not available. As per the principles of natural justice, the AO has to provide the evidence to the assessee & grant opportunity of cross-examination. Secondary evidences cannot be relied on as if neither the person who prepared the documents nor the witnesses are produced. The violation of natural justice renders the assessment void. The Dept cannot be given a second chance (All judgements considered)

Cross-examination is one part of the principles of natural justice: A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of M.P. v. Chintaman Sadashiva Vaishampayan AIR 1961 SC 1623, held that the rules of natural justice, require that a party must be given the opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence upon which he relies, and further that, the evidence of the opposite party should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, would violate the principles of natural justice

Top