Search Results For: Gautam Jain


Sunil Agarwal vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 24, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 26, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 151: If the AO reopens on the basis of information received from another AO without further inquiry, it means he has proceeded "mechanically" and "without application of mind". If the CIT does not give reasons while according sanction, it implies that he has also not applied his mind. Both render the reopening void (All imp judgements referred)

Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the CIT(a), who is the competent authority to authorize the reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression ‘approved’ says nothing. It is not as if the CIT(A) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest possible manner. In the present case, the exercise appears to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful, which is the rationale for the safeguard of an approval by a higher ranking officer

Prabhatam Investment Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 17, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 23, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: (i) The AO cannot ignore the documentation produced by the assessee to show that the investors are genuine, (ii) A s. 132(4) statement cannot be relied upon if the assessee is not give right of cross-examination, (iii) Fact that the shareholders did not respond to s. 133(6) notices does not warrant an adverse inference, (iv) Fact that the shareholders have low income does not warrant adverse inference, (v) Assessee is not required to prove source of source

The AO doubted the genuineness of the transaction because notice u/s 133(6) could not be served upon the investors and that the assessee was directed to produce both the parties by 19.03.2014. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee however, referred to Paper Book page 157 which is the reply before the AO dated 24.03.2014 in which the assessee has provided correct and updated address of the entity as per MCA website. The AO instead of issuing fresh notice u/s 133(6) at the correct address of the investor companies merely relied upon the fact that the earlier letter under the above provision has returned unserved. Since the AO did not issue fresh notice at the correct address provided by the assessee and no coercive action has been taken for the production of investors, therefore, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee

Apollo Tyres Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Cochin)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 10, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 11, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): The loss on sale of shares of a wholly-owned subsidiary is allowable as a business loss if the investment in the subsidiary was made for commercial purposes

The objective of ATAG was undertaking sales and marketing related activities for the brand of the appellant in Singapore. The said factual assertion has not been rebutted by the AO in the impugned assessment order. There is nothing on record to show that the said subsidiary company was doing any activity completely independent and unrelated to the activities carried out by the appellant company. Thus, the claim of the appellant that the investment was made for commercial purposes and not for purpose of accretion of investment cannot be rejected

Ishwar Chand Jindal vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 29, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 10, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(22)(e): loans and advances given for business transaction between the parties does not fall within the definition of “deemed dividend”

Payments made by a company through a running account in discharge of its existing debts or against purchases or for availing services, such payments made in the ordinary course of business carried on by both the parties could not be treated as deemed dividend for the purpose of section 2(22)(e). The deeming provisions of law contained in section 2(22)(e) apply in such cases where the company pays to a related person an amount as advance or a loan as such and not in any other context. The law does not prohibit business transactions between related concerns, and, therefore, payments made in the ordinary course of business cannot be treated as loans and advances

Top