Search Results For: Rohan Sogani


Pramod Kumar Lodha vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: July 16, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 2, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(38) Bogus long-term gains from penny stocks: The transaction cannot be treated as bogus until and unless a finding is given that the shares were acquired by the assessee from the person other than the broker claimed by the assessee. The enquiry conducted by the Investigation Indore is not a conclusive finding of fact in view of the fact that the shares were duly materialized & held in the d-mat account. Merely supplying of statement to the assessee at the fag end of the assessment proceedings is not sufficient to meet the requirement of giving an opportunity to cross examine. The AO cannot proceed on suspicion without any material evidence to controvert or disprove the evidence produced by the assessee

The decision of the AO holding the transaction as bogus and denying the claim of long term capital gain under section 10(38) of the Act is based on suspicion without any material evidence to controvert or disprove the evidence produced by the assessee. The enquiry conducted by the ITO Investigation Indore is not a conclusive finding of fact that the transaction of purchase of shares by the assessee is bogus particularly in view of admitted fact that these shares were held by the assessee and were duly materialized in the d-mat account. Therefore, until and unless a finding is given that the shares were acquired by the assessee from the person other than the broker claimed by the assessee, the mere suspicion how so ever strong may be, cannot be a basis of addition or disallowance of claim

Gemorium vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 14, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 21, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271B: Penalty for delay in furnishing tax audit report should not be imposed if there is no mala fide reason for the delay. Dispute with auditor is a reasonable cause u/s 273B for the delay in furnishing the tax audit report

The delay made by the assessee firm in filing the return of income is for the first time i.e. in A.Y. 2008-09 which was on account of dispute of audit fee between the assessee and the auditor. Hence, it appears that the dispute with the statutory auditor is a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B as held in the case of Kripa Industries (I) Ltd. vs. JCIT by ITAT Pune Bench (2002) 76 TTJ 502 (Pune) that there is no mala fide reason for not obtaining the accounts audited in time and penalty u/s 271B should not be imposed

Top