Search Results For: R. K. Patel


Shambhubhai Mahadev Ahir vs. ITAT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 20, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 16, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2): (i) Mere pendency of appeal in the High Court does not preclude the Tribunal's power of rectification, (ii) Fact that there is difference of opinion between the two members of the Tribunal would, by itself, nor mean that the error sought to be rectified is not apparent on the record & (iii) The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to recall an order based on submissions made and upon consideration of materials on record. The power of rectification are circumscribed with the condition that the same can be exercised for correcting error be of law or facts apparent on record. The jurisdiction to correct errors vested in the Tribunal is not akin to review powers

Whatever be the correctness of these findings it cannot be stated that the Tribunal arrived at such findings without proper consideration of materials on record. Several issues were presented before the Tribunal and were examined before coming to such specific finding. The Tribunal could not have recalled the entire order under purported exercise of rectification powers. It is well settled through series of judgements of this Court and the Supreme Court that power of rectification are circumscribed with the condition that the same can be exercised for correcting error be of law or facts apparent on record. The jurisdiction to correct errors vested in the Tribunal is not akin to review powers. As noted, the Accountant Member, while showing inclination to exercise rectification powers, had not cited any reason in support of his opinion

Radhaswami Salt Works vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 14, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 6, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: If the subject matter of the reopening is also the subject matter of appeal, the principle of merger would apply. There cannot be two separate considerations to the same subject matter relatable to the income, one by the appellate authority and another by the AO in fresh assessment. Scope of third proviso to s. 147 explained

Section 147 of the Act as is well known, empowers the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment, subject to certain conditions. 3rd proviso to section 147 however provides that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income other than the income involving the matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment. When the subject matter viz. the receipt of transfer of rights in land and the income relatable to such matter was the subject matter of appeal and thereafter second appeal, the principle of merger would apply. There cannot be two separate considerations to the same subject matter relatable to the income. One by the appellate authority or forum and another by the Assessing Officer in fresh assessment

Elecon Engineering Co Ltd vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 31, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 8, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: If the AO reopens the assessment on information supplied by the audit party without application of mind, the reopening is invalid. Likewise, if the AO disputes the findings of the audit party, he is not entitled to reopen the assessment. The reasons must show independent application of mind of the AO

The law on the point laid down by the Supreme Court in judgement in case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1999) 237 ITR 13 and in case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (1979) 119 ITR 996 is well settled. We also have the decision of this Court in case of Adani Exports v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1999) 240 ITR 224(Guj) on this issue. In case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society (supra), the Supreme observed that the opinion of the audit party on a point of law could not be regarded as information enabling the Assessing Officer to initiate reassessment proceedings. This aspect was elaborated by Division Bench judgement of this Court in case of Adani Exports (supra) observing that it is the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for the purpose of reopening which is subjective in nature but when the reasons recorded show a nexus between the formation of belief and the escapement of income, a further enquiry about the adequacy or sufficient of the material to such a belief is not open to be scrutinised. However, the decision of the Supreme Court would indicate that though audit objection may serve as an information, the basis on which the ITO can act, ultimate action must depend directly and solely on the formation of belief by ITO on his own, where such information passed on to him by the audit party that income has escaped assessment. In the said case, it was held that Assessing Officer had acted at the behest of audit party and that notice for reopening was therefore, bad in law

Alpha Nipon Innovatives Ltd vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 16, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 8, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: As per CBDT's Instruction No.3/2016 dated 10.03.2016, the AO is required to give an opportunity to the assessee to show cause why the reference should not be made to the TPO and thereafter pass a speaking order while making a reference to the TPO. The failure to do so renders the reference void

No speaking order has been passed by the Assessing Officer while making a reference to the TPO, which is a requirement as per the Instruction No.3/2016 dated 10th March, 2016, issued by the CBDT. Before making a reference to the TPO, the assessee is required to be given an opportunity to show cause why the reference may not be made to the TPO and thereafter a speaking order is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer while making a reference to the TPO

Chetnaben J Shah vs. ITO (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 14, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 5, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1994-95
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 132(4): Mere voluntary disclosure of undisclosed income by assessee cannot form basis of addition if no evidence is detected in search. Fact that retraction of statement is late is irrelevant. CBDT Circular No. F.No.286/2/2003-IT (In) dated 10.03.2003 bars addition on the basis of confession

It is a normal presumption that statement under section 132(4) is given voluntarily unless it is proved otherwise. There is no evidence on record to show that this statement was given in any coercion. But this statement was subject to variation on either side after verification i.e. assessee could reduce the disclosure made or the Assessing Officer could enhance the same if the facts and evidence so warranted. May be, even if this fact is not mentioned in the statement itself, the point will still remain since it is no body’s case to get say any extra tax then is due. The reality remains that there is no evidence what-so-ever with the department even in consequence of a serious action like search and seizure followed by detailed security which could support the earning of speculation income of Rs.10,50,000/- in this year. In other words, there is no evidence to support the very existence of this income except the so called statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. It defies logic that an assessee will or should admit any income which he had not earned and which the department had not found out

CIT vs. Ramanbhai B Patel (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 20, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 3, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1991-92
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 132(4): Admission of undisclosed income by assessee is not conclusive if no evidence is found to support the admission. A retraction, though belated, is valid. Failure to provide cross-examination to assessee of persons whose statements are relied up is fatal to the addition. CBDT Directive F.No.286/98/2013 IT (INV.II] dated 18/12/2014 prohibits additions on the basis of confession

Admission made by the assessee is not a conclusive proof and such admission can be used as an evidence unless it is not retracted. The assessee in this case has already retracted the statement which in our opinion is a valid retraction. Although there had been search in the case of Gokul Corporation and its partner Shri Suresh A Patel on which the Revenue has relied for making the additions in the case of the assessee but the Revenue could not bring any evidence or material except the statement of the assessee which was recorded on 8.1.96 and also the statements of Shri Subhash Pandey and Shri Kashyap Thakore and these statements were although recorded at the back of the assessee. When the assessee has asked for their cross-examination, the cross examination was not given to the assessee, although the statement of the assessee was recored in consequence of the said statement

Tata Teleservices vs. UOI (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 5, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 201(3): The amendment to s. 201(3) by FA 2014 to extend the time limit for passing s. 201 orders is prospective and does not apply to cases which are already time-barred. A show-cause notice involving a pure point of law can be challenged in a Writ Petition

An accrued right to plead a time barred which is acquired after the lapse of the statutory period is in every sense a right even though it arises under an Act which is procedural. It is a right which is not to be taken away by conferring on the statute a retrospective operation unless such a construction is unavoidable. while amending section 201 by Finance Act, 2014, it has been specifically mentioned that the same shall be applicable w.e.f. 1/10/2014 and even considering the fact that proceedings for F.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 had become time barred and/or for the aforesaid financial years, limitation under section 201(3)(i) of the Act had already expired on 31/3/2011 and 31/3/2012, respectively, much prior to the amendment in section 201 as amended by Finance Act, 2014 and therefore, as such a right has been accrued in favour of the assessee

Varshaben Sanatbhai Patel vs. ITO (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 26, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 143(1)/ 147: If the assessment is reopened on the ground of “bogus purchases”, the reasons must contain an averment of which details on record reflect the bogus purchases

The returns filed by the assessee have been processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded for the purpose of reopening the assessment has placed reliance upon the record of the case. As noted hereinabove, there is no assertion as regards on what basis the Assessing Officer has stated that the assessee had made claim in respect of bogus purchases in the trading and the Profit and Loss Account as expenditure. The Assessing Officer has stated that on verification of the details available on record, it has been noticed that the assessee has made bogus purchases; however, no specific averments are made as regards which details available on record reflected such bogus purchases

Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 18, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 1, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1999-00
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 263: Failure to conduct inquiry & hear assessee before issue of notice renders proceedings invalid. Order of CIT(A) results in merger of AO's order and bars s. 263 revision

It is clear that the assessee and the revenue both had preferred the appeals raising all the grounds, over and above the ground of deduction under Section 80HHC and 80IA of the Act, the order of the AO stood merged

Amrut Tubewell Company vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 11, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 1, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1986-87
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) & 273(2)(a): Penalty cannot be mechanically levied. Cogent reasons have to be given

Sections 271(1)(c) and 273(2)(a) empower the AO to impose penalty on an assessee in a case, where, (1) there is concealment of income or (2) conscious attempt to provide the particulars of income which is untrue. Meaning thereby, the AO

Top