Search Results For: Nitesh Joshi


DIT (Exemptions) vs. Khar Gymkhana (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 6, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 16, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(15)/12AA(3): The DIT has no jurisdiction to cancel registration of a charitable institution on the ground that it is carrying on commercial activities which are in breach of the amended definition of "charitable purpose" in s. 2(15). Registration can be cancelled only if the activities of the trust are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with its objects. This is clarified by Circular No.21 of 2016

The submission made on behalf of the Revenue that the Circular No.21 of 2016 would have only prospective effect in respect of Assessment made subsequent to the amendment under Section 2(15) of the Act w.e.f. 1st April, 2016 is also not sustainable. The amendment in Section 2(15) of the Act brought about by Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1st April, 2016, is essentially that where earlier the receipts in excess of Rs.25 lakhs on commercial activities would exclude it from the definition of ‘charitable purpose’ is now substituted by receipts from commercial activities in excess 20% of the total receipts of the institution. In the above view, Circular No.21 of 2016 directs the Officer of the Revenue not to cancel Registration only because the receipts on account of business are in excess of the limits in the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act would also apply in the present case. The impugned order has held that cancellation of a Registration under Section 12AA(3) of the Act, can only take place in case where the activities of trust or institution are not genuine and/or not carried on in accordance with its objects

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Soignee R. Kothari vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: April 5, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 15, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Though assessee claims that she is a non-resident & that onus is on the revenue to show that the money in the HSBC Geneva account is taxable in India, the non-cooperation with the Revenue by signing the consent waiver form shows that she has something to hide and makes it an unfit case for exercise of writ jurisdiction

In the normal course of human conduct if a person has nothing to hide and serious allegations /questions are being raised about the funds a person would make available the documents which would put to rest all questions which seem to arise in the mind of the Authorities. The conduct on the part of the Petitioner and her uncle, in not being forthcoming, to our mind leads us to the conclusion that this is not a fit case where we should exercise our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction and/or interfere with the orders passed by the authorities under the Act. If a person has nothing to hide, we believe the person would have cooperated in obtaining the Bank Statements

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Harish Textile Engrs. Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 30, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 17, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 292C: The presumption that documents found during search correctly reflect the facts is a ‘discretionary presumption’ & not a ‘compulsory presumption’. The presumption does not apply if the documents are inchoate

Section 292 of the Act provides that where any documents are found in possession or control of any person in the course of search under Section 132 of the Act, then it may be presumed in any proceedings under this Act that the contents of such documents are true and correct. It will be noted that the section uses the word ‘may presume’ and not ‘shall presume’ or ‘conclusively presume’. The words ‘may presume’ are in the nature of discretionary presumption different from a compulsory presumption. Therefore this presumption has to be invoked by the authorities passing an order under the Act particularly when the invocation of such presumption is discretionary on the authorities

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Dhimant Hiralal Thakar vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 28, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 17, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1986-87
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): Though eyes are an important tool for the performance of functions by a professional (solicitor), the expenditure on its treatment is personal expenditure and not business expenditure

No evidence has been brought on record to establish that in the absence of investigation and treatment, the applicant would be handicapped in discharging his obligation as a Solicitor/ Advocate. While at this, we cannot resist but point out that in this Court itself, we have a couple of visually challenged Advocates who are very competent in discharging their duties. Taken to its logical conclusion, then every and all expense incurred on daily living and food would be allowable as expenditure under Section 37 of the Act

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Reliance Industries Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: July 20, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 29, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1985-86, 1987-88
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 221: Penalty for failure to pay TDS in time can be levied even if the assessee voluntarily pays the TDS. Financial hardship, diverse locations and lack of computerization are not good excuses. The fact that CIT(A) decided in favour of the assessee & deleted the penalty does not necessarily mean that two views are possible

Parliament treats a person who has deducted the tax and fails to pay it to revenue as a class different from a person who has not deducted the tax and also not deposited the tax with revenue. This is for the reason that in the first class of cases the assessee concerned after deducting the tax, keep the money so deducted which belongs to another person for its own use. In the second class of cases, the assessee concerned does not take any advantage as he pays the entire amount to the payee without deducting any tax and does not enrich itself at the cost of the government. Therefore, although penalty is also imposable in the second class of cases, yet in view of the proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act, it is open to such assessee to satisfy the Assessing Officer that as they have good and sufficient reasons no penalty is imposable. It is in the above view that in the first class of assessees the Parliament has provided for prosecution under Section 276B of the Act for failing the pay the tax deducted at source

Posted in All Judgements, High Court