Search Results For: K. Gopal


DCIT vs. Varsity Education Management Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 24, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 31, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share premium: The AO cannot assess the share premium as income on the ground that it is "excessive". The share premium worked out in the Valuation Certificate is the minimum amount that can be collected by the assessee under RBI regulations. There is no bar on collecting higher amount as share premium. There are several factors that are taken into consideration while issuing the equity shares to shareholders/investors, such as Venture capital funds and Private Equity funds. The premium is determined between the parties on the basis of commercial considerations and cannot be questioned by the tax authorities. The AO is not entitled to sit on the arm chair of a businessman and regulate the manner of conducting business (All judgements considered)

Once the AO was satisfied with the identity and credit worthiness of the investor and genuineness of transactions, the assessee can be said to have proved the “nature and source” of the cash credits. The amounts received as Share premium are in the nature of capital receipts as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services P Ltd (supra) and the assessee has also discharged the onus placed upon it u/s 68 of the Act. In fact, the AO himself accepted the share premium to the extent of Rs.672/- per share as Capital receipt. Hence the “nature” of alleged excess share premium amount cannot be considered as receipt of income nature

Raghuleela Builders Pvt Ltd vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 21, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 30, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
These Petitions have been filed challenging a somewhat curious and unforeseen development. We do not know in what circumstances the Chairman flew down to Mumbai and invited the members for discussion in relation to some cases or related issues. It would be highly risky if such discussions in relation to judicial orders and judicial matters are held in a close-door meeting or in the privacy of the chambers of the members of the Settlement Commission. There is a uncalled for interference in judicial proceedings and none including the Chairman can direct a particular course of action to be taken or a particular order being passed in pending judicial proceedings

The Petitioners are not precluded from challenging the manner in which the Chairman intervened in this matter at a later stage. We would not like to interfere with the pending proceedings for then we would commit the same mistake, if at all, committed by the learned Chairman. It would not be proper to presume at this stage that the Proceedings are necessarily going to an end, with final orders, but adverse to the Petitioners’ interests. For all we know the settlement may go through to the satisfaction of all parties before the Settlement Commission. In the event the apprehension comes true and the Chairman’s meeting and discussion with the members of the Commission results in an adverse order as apprehended, then, while challenging such final orders and if they are found to be influenced by the Chairman’s alleged uncalled for and undue intervention, the Petitioners can raise appropriate pleas and urge before this Court that they have not been dealt with fairly by the Settlement Commission. There is a uncalled for interference in judicial proceedings and none including the Chairman can direct a particular course of action to be taken or a particular order being passed in pending judicial proceedings

DCIT vs. Inventaa Industries Private Limited (ITAT Hyderabad Special Bench)

COURT: ,
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: July 9, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 14, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(1A) Agricultural income: Mushroom is not a ‘vegetable’, ‘plant’, 'fruit' or ‘animal’ but is a ‘fungus’. Anything which is produced by performing basic operations on the soil is an "agricultural product" and the income therefrom is "agricultural income". The nature of the product and the fact that it is not a ‘plant’, ‘flower’, ‘vegetable’ or ‘fruit’ is irrelevant. The only relevant aspect is whether the production is by performing some basic operations on the soil (All judgements considered)

It is clear that we cannot restrict the word “product” to ‘plants’, ‘fruits’, ‘vegetables’ or such botanical life only. The only condition is that the “product” in question should be raised on the land by performing some basic operations. Mushroom produced by the assessee is a product. This product is raised on land/soil, by performing certain basic operation. The product draws nourishment from the soil and is naturally grown, by such operation on soil which require expenditure of “human skill and labour”. The product so raised has utility for consumption, trade and commerce and hence would qualify as an “agricultural product” the sale of which gives rise to agricultural income.

Vora Financial Services P. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: June 29, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 5, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(viia) is a counter evasion mechanism to prevent laundering of unaccounted income under the garb of gifts. The primary condition for invoking S. 56(2)(viia) is that the asset gifted should become a “capital asset” and property in the hands of recipient. If the assessee-company has purchased shares under a buyback scheme and the said shares are extinguished by writing down the share capital, the shares do not become capital asset of the assessee-company and hence s. 56(2)(viia) cannot be invoked in the hands of the assessee company

The provisions of sec. 56(2)(viia) should be applicable only in cases where the receipt of shares become property in the hands of recipient and the shares shall become property of the recipient only if it is “shares of any other company”. In the instant case, the assessee herein has purchased its own shares under buyback scheme and the same has been extinguished by reducing the capital and hence the tests of “becoming property” and also “shares of any other company” fail in this case. Accordingly we are of the view that the tax authorities are not justified in invoking the provisions of sec. 56(2)(viia) for buyback of own shares

Zuari Foods and Farms Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 13, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 13, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Law on reopening of assessments within four years and beyond four years explained with reference to all important case laws. Strictures passed against the AO for making comments which are highly objectionable and bordering on contempt and for being oblivious to law. As the very same ACIT had passed series of orders reopening assessments in ignorance of legal position, a compilation of judgments on reassessment proceedings should be furnished to the Commissioner to study the same. The position of law regarding the writ remedy is so settled, that it is understood even by the law students

The above observations made by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax are highly objectionable and are bordering on contempt. We however, give him the benefit of doubt of being oblivious to law. We had, in fact, in an earlier Writ Petition No. 1000 of 2017, after noticing that the very same Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax had passed series of order reopening assessments in ignorance of legal position, had requested the learned Standing Counsel to furnish the compilation of judgments of reassessment proceedings to the learned Commissioner to study the same. The position of law regarding the writ remedy is so settled, that it is understood even by the law students

Sandvik Asia Limited vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 11, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 22, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1990-91
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): Law on when expenditure towards property can be termed as being for protection of the property or for curing a defect and whether that is capital or revenue explained

This payment made by the Appellant in its nature is different from a payment made to protect the property. In fact, Supreme Court in the case of Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v/s. CIT 27 ITR 34 while laying down the criteria to decide/ determine whether the payment is of capital or revenue nature has observed that the aim and object of the expenditure would determine the character of the payment. In the present facts, as pointed out above, the entire aim and object of the payment was not only that the certainty of acquisition is aborted but enduring benefit as pointed out above is obtained by the Appellant. This would conclusively determine that the payment in this case was capital in nature in the capital field

DIT vs. M/s. Societe Generale (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 15, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 1, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
ITAT’s practice of routinely consolidating appeals is “most unfortunate, disturbing and dangerous” and leads to “pile-up” of cases. Such “elementary mistakes” should not be committed in future. ITAT is expected not to sign judgments and decisions unless they are checked thoroughly after transcription. It may be a boring task but it has to be performed by none other than the decision makers

The factual situation the backdrop of which this question is raised to be most unfortunate, disturbing and dangerous to say the least. The Tribunal as a matter of routine goes on consolidating appeals …. We think that our observations made above are enough to guide the Tribunal and we hope that such mistakes and elementary in nature are not committed in future. We also expect the Tribunal not to sign judgments and decisions unless their checked thoroughly by them after their transcription. It may be a boring task but it has to be performed by none other than the decision makers

Plus Paper Food Pac Ltd vs. ITO (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 25, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 31, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 148: If the recorded reasons show contradiction and inconsistency it means necessary satisfaction in terms of the statutory provision has not been recorded at all. The Court cannot be called upon to indulge in guess work or speculate as to which reason has enabled the AO to act in terms of s. 147

The Court cannot be called upon to indulge in guess work or speculate as to which reason has enabled the Assessing Officer to act in terms of this section. If more than one reason is assigned as in this case then the Court can sustain the notice only if it is of the opinion that an erroneous reference to a statutory provision has been made but still there is an income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and on account of which issuance of notice is justified. Which ground is sufficient to sustain the notice is something which must be indicated in clear terms and should not be a matter of speculation or guess work

CIT vs. M/s S. M. Construction (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 3, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 12, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Law laid down in Zoom Comm 327 ITR 510 (Del) does not apply if claim of assessee is bona fide and not in defiance of the law

The decision of the Delhi High Court in Zoom Communication P. Ltd. 327 ITR 510 (Del) is not applicable in the present facts for the reason that in this case, the stand taken by the assessee cannot be said to be in defiance of law and thus not bonafide

ACIT vs. S. K. International (Export) Co (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 19, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10B(4): The argument that s. 10B(4) lays down a computational formula and that all business profits (including DEPB receipts) should be eligible for deduction irrespective of the effective source is not acceptable

We are unable to subscribe to the view expressed per the decisions relied upon by the assessee, i.e., that in view of computational formula of section 10B(4), the entire profits of the business of the undertaking, irrespective of their immediate source, shall comprise the qualifying profits

Top