Search Results For: Ex-parte


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

PCIT vs. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 7, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 29, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Even a s. 143(1) assessment cannot be reopened without proper 'reason to believe'. If the reasons state that the information received from the VAT Dept that the assessee entered into bogus purchases "needed deep verification", it means the AO is reopening for doing a 'fishing or roving inquiry' without proper reason to believe, which is not permissible

It is equally well settled that the notice of reopening can be supported on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. He cannot supplement such reasons. The third principle of law which is equally well settled and which would apply in the present case is that reopening of the assessment would not be permitted for a fishing or a roving inquiry. This can as well be seen as part of the first requirement of the Assessing Officer having reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In other words, notice of reopening which is issued barely for making fishing inquiry, would not satisfy this requirement

In Re Hiten Ramanlal Mahimtura (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 1, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 3, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 253(5) r.w.s. 252(1): The Registrar of the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider and decide on applications for condonation of delay. Only the Court/ Tribunal have the power. The order passed by the Registrar is ultra vires his power and non est in law. He should desist from passing such orders

The power of condoning the delay is with the Court/Tribunal under the Limitation Act as well as u/s 253(5) r.w.s. 252(1) of the Income Tax Act. The petition of assessee has to be examined by the court/Tribunal after hearing both the parties and after considering the reasons, facts etc. Hence, the order passed by the Registrar is ultra virus beyond his power. hence his order is non-est in the eyes of the law. Henceforth the Registrar should desist from passing such orders and he should put up all petitions before the Bench.

Pr. CIT vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 17, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 21, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus loans: The assessee is not required to explain the "source of source" prior to insertion of the proviso to s. 68. If the assessee has discharged the primary onus placed upon it u/s 68 by filing confirmation letters, the Affidavits, the full address and pan numbers of the creditors, the Revenue has to proceed against the persons whose source of funds are alleged to be not genuine

The proviso to Section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1st April, 2013 and therefore it would be effective only from Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards and not for the earlier assessment years. Where the Revenue urges that the money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Revenue to proceed against them in accordance with law. This would not entitle the Revenue to invoke Section 68 of the Act while assessing the respondent for not explaining the source of its source.

Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (Gwalior) M.P. Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 16, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 17, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 12A: The CIT has no power to cancel/withdraw/recall the registration certificate granted u/s 12A until express power to do so was granted by s. 12AA(3). Though the grant of certificate is a quasi judicial function, s. 21 of the General Clauses Act cannot be applied to support the order of cancellation of the registration certificate

The CIT had no express power of cancellation of the registration certificate once granted by him to the assessee under Section 12A till 01.10.2004. It is for the reasons that, first, there was no express provision in the Act vesting the CIT with the power to cancel the registration certificate granted under Section 12A of the Act. Second, the order passed under Section 12A by the CIT is a quasi judicial order and being quasi judicial in nature, it could be withdrawn/recalled by the CIT only when there was express power vested in him under the Act to do so. In this case there was no such express power

Pr CIT vs. Prem Pal Gandhi (P&H High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 18, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 25, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus capital gains from Penny stocks: The fact that the appreciation in the value of the shares is high does not justify the transactions being treated as fictitious and the capital gains being assessed as undisclosed income if (a) the shares are traded on the Stock Exchange, (b) the payments and receipts are routed through the bank, (c) there is no evidence to indicate it is a closely held company and (d) the trading on the Stock Exchange was manipulated in any manner

The assessee purchased shares of a company during the assessment year 2006-2007 at Rs 11/- and sold the same in the assessment year 2008-2009 at Rs 400/- per share. The Assessing Officer added the appreciation to the assessees’ income on the suspicion that these were fictitious transactions and that the appreciation actually represented the assessees’ income from undisclosed sources. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not produced any evidence whatsoever in support of the suspicion. On the other hand, although the appreciation is very high, the shares were traded on the National Stock Exchange and the payments and receipts were routed through the bank. There was no evidence to indicate for instance that this was a closely held company and that the trading on the National Stock Exchange was manipulated in any manner

Top