Home ›

Search Results For: Girish Dave

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: June 14, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 20, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(vii)(c): The assessee's purchase of shares of NDTV Ltd at Rs 4 per share from RRPR Holdings Pvt Ltd when the market price of the share was Rs 140 is a benefit taxable u/s 56 (2)( vii). The argument that as it is a transaction between closely related parties, there is no motive of tax evasion & s. 56 (2) does not apply is not acceptable. The assessee has failed to explain by credible evidence any reason of buying shares of the company at Rs. 4 per share when the quoted price was Rs. 140 & so the assessee cannot say that there was no motive of tax evasion. Even otherwise, s. 56 (2) deems such differences/receipts as income

Where an individual or after 1 st day of October 2009, receives any property other than immovable property for a consideration, which is less than the aggregate fair market value of the property by an amount exceeding INR 50,000/- , the aggregate of fair market value of such property as exceeds such consideration is chargeable to tax under the head income from other sources. The impugned asset that has been transferred in this transaction in shares, which is covered under the definition of property as per clause (d) of the second proviso to the above section. Further fair market value of such transaction is also required to be determined under section 11 UA of the income tax rules according to which the fair market value in respect of a court in shares are the quoted price on the recognized stock exchange. Therefore the impugned transaction satisfied all the ingredients of the provisions of section 56 (2) (vii) of the act

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 7, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 15, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 143(2)/ 292BB: The issue of a notice u/s 143(2) bearing the wrong (old) address of the assessee does not amount to a valid service of the notice u/s 282 r.w.s. 27 of the General Clauses Act. The non-service of a notice u/s 143(2) before the expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return was filed renders the assessment void. As the assessee objected to the same before completion of proceedings, the assessment order is not saved by s. 292BB

It is undisputed position before us that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act which was handed over to the post office on 30th November, 2007 was incorrectly addressed i.e. it was addressed to the assessee’s old office at Nariman Point, Mumbai. In terms of Section 282 of the Act as existing in 2007 a notice may be served on the person named therein either by post or as if it were a summons issued by the Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act provides that where any Central Act requires a document to be served by post where the expression “serve” or “given” or “sent” shall be deemed to have been effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting. In such cases, unless the contrary is proved which would be deemed to have been served at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post to the addressee. In this case admittedly the envelope containing the notice was wrongly addressed. Thus the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act cannot be invoked

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 14, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 12, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07, 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147 reopening opens a "Pandora's box" and cannot be done in a casual manner. The reasons cannot be based on mere doubts or with a view to verify basic facts. If the AO takes the view that the income referred to in the reasons has not escaped assessment, he loses jurisdiction to assess other escaped income that comes to his notice during reassessment

The Reasons have been recorded on the basis of mere doubts. There were no bases with the AO to allege that too with the support of any cogent material that impugned income was not included by the assessee in its income offered to tax. Reopening of an assessment is not permitted merely on the basis of some notions or presumptions. Nor it is allowed merely for making verification of some basic facts. There must be existence of some tangible material indicating escapement of income. Then only, an AO is permitted to resort to provisions of reopening contained in sections 147 to 151 of the Act. Because, once an assessment is reopened on valid basis, entire pandara’s box is open before the AO. Therefore the AO may then bring to tax not only income escaped from tax which was mentioned in the Reasons recorded, but also any other escaped income that may come to his notice during the course of reassessment proceedings. Reopening of an assessment attacks and pierces the concept of finality of litigation. Therefore, an invalid reopening done in the casual manner and without following parameters of law may cause undue hardship to the taxpayers

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 31, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 3, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Reopening on the possibility that the assessee AOP may or may not be a taxable unit is based on surmise and presumption & is invalid

(i) The assessee is a FUND and a resident of Denmark. Along with its return of income, in India, the assessee had submitted ‘Tax Residency Certificate’ issued by the Danish Authorities in order to claim the benefit of Article 14 …

Investeringsforeningen BankInvest vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai) Read More »