Search Results For: S. C. Tiwari


Kishore Jagjivandas Tanna vs. JDIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 17, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 23, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Art 226: If an assessee obtains an order from the Court that the Dept should refund the seized amount but does not take steps to enforce the order beyond the period of limitation, he is guilty of laches and negligence. He is not entitled to file another Writ for enforcement of the earlier order. Such a litigant does not deserve any relief in the discretionary and equitable jurisdiction of the High Court

This Court is not obliged to entertain belated and stale claims. The writ jurisdiction is not meant to confer benefit or enable litigants who sleep over their rights to derive an advantage for themselves. The writ jurisdiction is equitable and discretionary and if people like the petitioner, who is a businessman and prudent enough to know as to how monies, allegedly retained illegally, have to be recovered promptly and expeditiously. He does nothing despite a favourable order from this Court for more than a decade. Such a litigant does not deserve any relief in our discretionary and equitable jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is extraordinary as well. It is not meant to get over the bar prescribed in the Limitation Act, 1963 for bringing a suit either. This indirect and oblique way of seeking a discretionary relief has to be discouraged

Coronation Agro Industries Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: November 23, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 5, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: It is a regular practice for the broker to make modifications in the client code after the purchase and sale of securities. The mere fact that there is a client code modification prima facie does not mean that any income has escaped assessment. it appears to be case of 'reason to suspect' and not 'reason to believe'

We note that the reasons in support of the impugned notice accept the fact that as a matter of regular business practice, a broker in the stock exchange makes modifications in the client code on sale and / or purchase of any securities, after the trading is over so as to rectify any error which may have occurred while punching the orders. The reasons do not indicate the basis for the Assessing Officer to come to reasonable belief that there has been any escapement of income on the ground that the modifications done in the client code was not on account of a genuine error, originally occurred while punching the trade. The material available is that there is a client code modification done by the Assessee’s broker but there is no link from there to conclude that it was done to escape assessment of a part of its income. Prima facie, this appears to be a case of reason to suspect and not reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

CIT vs. Techno Tarp and Polymers Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 5, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 1, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10A/10B: After the change in scheme from “exemption” to “deduction” w.e.f. 01.04.2001, brought forward unabsorbed loss & depreciation of other 10B units and non-10B units are not liable for set off against the current year's profit of the 10B unit. The contrary law laid down in Himatasingike Seide 156 Taxman 151 (Kar), as approved by the Supreme Court, deals with the law pre 01.04.2001 when s. 10A/10B provided for an “exemption” and not a “deduction”

We find that the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Himatasingike Seide Ltd. (supra) which was undisturbed by the Apex Court was in respect of Assessment Year 1994-95. Thus it dealt with the provisions of Section 10B of the Act as existing prior to 1 April 2001 which was admittedly different from Section 10B as in force during Assessment Year 2009-10 involved in this appeal. Section 10B of the Act as existing prior to 1 April 2001 provided for an exemption in respect of profits and gains derived from export by 100% Export Oriented Undertakings and now it provides for deduction of profits and gains derived from a 100% Exported Oriented Units

Hema Hiren Dand vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 18, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 23, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
The object of introduction of Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was to end litigation on the issue of whether profit earned from delivery based sale of shares is capital gains or business profit. Merely because the assessee liquidates its investment within a short span of time, which had given better overall earning to the assessee, would not lead to the conclusion that the assessee had no intention to keep on the funds as investor in equity shares, but was actually intended to trade in shares

The idea behind introduction of security transaction tax is to end the litigation on the issue, whether the profit earned from delivery based sale of shares is capital gains for business profit. Thus, w.e.f. 01.10.2004; on the share transactions subjected to STT; concessional tax rate of 10% (which has been increased to 15% from AY 2009-10) are applicable in respect of STCG whereas no tax is chargeable in respect of LTCG. It is also noted that the CBDT vide its Circular no.4/2007, dated 15.06.2007 has also recognized possibility of two portfolios, i.e. one ‘Investment portfolio’ comprising of securities which are to be treated as capital assets and the other ‘Trading portfolio’ comprising of stock in trade which are to be treated as trading assets. In view of these facts, profit arose on shares in respect of delivery based transaction are liable to be taxed as capital gain and not as business income.

Harsha L. Tahilramani vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 17, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 24, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Law on the tests to distinguish whether gains on sale of shares is short-term or business profits explained

(i) The assessee wonders as to why should she be not allowed her claim of the delivery-based transactions as being not trade, which stands admitted by her qua non-delivery based transactions? However, that precisely defines the controversy which is to

Top