Home ›

Search Results For: Harsh Kapadia

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , , ,
DATE: April 6, 2021 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 24, 2021 (Date of publication)
AY: AY 2019-20
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 245 Adjustment of Refund: The Dept has not complied with the requirements of s. 245 of the Act. It is difficult to appreciate the stand of the Dept that the order passed by the high court would not cover/operate over the matters and orders passed by the ITAT, Union of India being not a party to the matter. Such a justification from and the approach of, the authorities is difficult to be approved of which is not in fitness of stature, especially of the state department, which is supposed to act like a model litigant (All imp judgements on s. 245 referred)

Although the respondents purport to contend that proper procedure had been followed, record does not bear that there had been any communication made to the petitioner as to its submissions being not acceptable before or at the time of making the adjustment. Decisions in the cases of “A. N. Shaikh”, “Hindustan Unilever Ltd.,” and “Milestone Real Estate Fund” (supra) relied on, on behalf of the petitioner have not been met with by the respondents nor it is the case of the respondents that any other course could be adopted for adjustment of refund. There is stark absence of material showing compliance of requirements viz: application of mind to contentions on behalf of the petitioner, reasoned order and its communication to the assessee. The facts and circumstances lend lot of substance to submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that there is absence of compliance of requirements under section 245 of the Act, coupled with observations of high court in the decisions relied upon on behalf of the petitioners

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , , , , ,
DATE: January 15, 2021 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 23, 2021 (Date of publication)
AY: 2020-21
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Extension of Due Date for filing RoI and TAR: Power exercised by the CBDT u/s 119 is discretionary. On careful consideration of the order passed by the CBDT on 11.01.2021, we are of the considered view that it cannot be said that CBDT had failed to exercise its discretion or that it acted in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner in refusing to grant further extension of the due dates. We therefore do not find any good ground to invoke our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct CBDT for further extension of the due dates

We find from the order dated 11th January, 2020 passed by the CBDT under section 119 of the Act that across the board three extensions of the due dates have been granted. In so far filing of tax audit report is concerned, the original due date was 30th September, 2020, which was first extended to 31st October, 2020, thereafter to 31st December, 2020 and now to 15th January, 2021. In respect of filing of income tax return in those cases where tax audit report is required to be filed the original due date was 31st October, 2020 which was first extended to 30th November, 2020, thereafter to 31st January, 2021 and finally to 15th February, 2021. Thus, we find that CBDT had considered the evolving situation in the country and thereafter, had extended the due dates on three occasions. Now CBDT says that filing of audit reports and income tax reports cannot be delayed indefinitely. Therefore, a line has been drawn that no further extension of the due dates would be granted.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 15, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 29, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2015-16
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 92C(1) Transfer Pricing: Even if the assessee does not report the specified transaction & the AO has no occasion to notice it, the TPO has no jurisdiction to suo moto determine the ALP. He has to call for a reference from the AO. Alternate remedy is not a bar if the action is without jurisdiction & can be severed from the rest

Learned counsel for the Revenue is correct in pointing out that in the present case, the assessee did not report such transaction at all and therefore, the Assessing Officer had no occasion to notice such transaction as specified domestic transaction. His reference, therefore, was necessarily confined to the reported transactions. The TPO noticed this anomaly, he proceeded to determine the arm’s length price after full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Even in such a situation, the statute does not permit the TPO to assume the jurisdiction to determine the arm’s length price of a specified domestic transaction not reported to him

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 9, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 29, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Entire law on what constitutes a "Sham transaction"/ "Colourable device" explained. The sale of shares in a pvt ltd co by the assessee to a relative (son) in order to book losses so as to set-off the capital gains from on sale of property cannot be rejected as a sham transaction / colourable device if the transaction is within the four corners of law and valid

The transactions being genuine, merely because the assessee has claimed set-off of capital loss against the capital gain earned during the same period, cannot be said to be a colourable device or method adopted by assessee to avoid the tax. The shares were transferred by executing share transfer Form and after paying the requisite Stamp duty. The company NTPL also passed a Board Resolution for transfer of those shares. The consideration of share was effected to through banking channel. The fair market value arrived by assessee, as furnished before Commissioner (Appeals). In our view the transactions of sale of share were genuine and transacted at a proper valuation. The lower authority has not disputed the genuinity of transaction. The transactions carried by assessee are valid in law, cannot be treated as non-est merely on the basis of some economic detriment or it may be prejudicial to the interest of revenue

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 9, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 21, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2): Tribunal orders (in sister concern's case) are binding on the Tribunal unless set-aside or stayed. A rectification application on the ground that the orders in the sister concern's case are not correct is not permissible as it amounts to a review

The Revenue has filed appeals in the sister concern case for the Assessment Years 199697 to 200001 under Section 260A of the Act to this Court. The question raised therein is on the issue of appropriate classification of the rent/ compensation under the head ‘income from the other sources’ or under the head ‘income from the house property’. The aforesaid appeals have been admitted and are awaiting consideration for final disposal. Till such time, as the orders of the Tribunal of its Coordinate Bench in respect of the Assessment Years 1996-97 to 2000-01 are set aside or are stayed pending the final disposal, its ratio would, prima facie, continue to be binding. Therefore, even if the Revenue seek to contend to the contrary it would be a debatable issue. This cannot be a subject matter of rectification

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 6, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 20, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(ia): Payments by a CA firm to foreign professional entities for services rendered abroad is not taxable under Articles 12 and 15 of the India-USA DTAA. The retrospective amendment to s. 9(1)(vii) to tax services rendered outside India does not apply in the context of a disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) in the hands of the payer

Ostensibly, the requirement of rendering services in India in order to attract section 9(1)(vii) of the Act was removed by insertion of Explanation by the Finance Act, 2010 with retrospective effect from 1/4/1976. This has been understood by the Revenue to say that inspite of the services having been rendered by the recipients outside India, the same is taxable in India by applying the aforesaid amendment. In our view, such retrospective amendment would be determinative of the tax liability in the hands of the recipients of income. So however, in the present case, what is held against the assessee is the failure to deduct tax at source at the time of payment of such income. Ostensibly, dehors the aforesaid amendment, the impugned income was not subject to tax deduction at source in India as per the prevailing legal position. Taxability of a sum in the hands of recipient, on account of a subsequent retrospective amendment would not expose the assessee-payer to an impossible situation of requiring deduction of tax at source on the date of payment. Therefore, on this count also the assessee cannot be held to be in default in not deducting tax at source so as to trigger the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act

Read more ›