Search Results For: S. N. Soparkar


Nishant Construction Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 14, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 18, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 143(3): Loose papers which do not have full details are "dumb documents" and have no evidentiary value. The fact that the assessee sold goods at a concession does not mean that that the difference between sale value and market value can be assessed as income. The onus is on the AO to make inquiries from the buyers and bring incriminating evidence on record to show that the assessee sold flats at a higher rate

The AO has no power to disturb the sale price shown except in three cases. The first is under Section 145 of the Act. Where the sale of properties is part of the business of the assessee, the Assessing Officer, if he is of the opinion that the accounts are not correct and complete, may proceed to reject the books of accounts and thereafter make a best judgment assessment of the income in the manner prescribed by Section 144. The second is the case where Section 50C of the Act is invoked on the basis of the prices fixed by the Stamp Valuation Authorities of the State Government. That section, it is pointed out, however, applies only in the computation of capital gains and cannot be availed by the Revenue where the profits of the business are to be computed

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

DCIT vs. Welspun Corporation Limited (ITAT Ahmedabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 3, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 18, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1): Important law explained as to the taxability of export sale commission payments received by non-resident agents and the obligation of the assessee to deduct TDS thereon in the context of s. 9(1)(i)/ 9(1)(vii) of the Act and relevant provisions of the DTAA

In the light of the above legal position, what we need to decide at the outset is whether the amounts paid by the assessee to the non-resident agents could be termed as “consideration for the rendering of any managerial, technical and consultancy services”. As we do so, it is useful to bear in mind the fact that even going by the stand of the Assessing Officer, at best services rendered by the nonresident to the agent included technical services but it is for this reason that the amounts paid to these agents, on account of commission on exports, should be treated as fees for technical services. Even proceeding on the assumption that these non-resident agents did render the technical services, which, as we will see a little later, an incorrect assumption anyway, what is important to appreciate is that the amounts paid by the assessee to these agents constituted consideration for the orders secured by the agents and not the services alleged rendered by the agents. The event triggering crystallization of liability of the assessee, under the commission agency agreement, is the event of securing orders and not the rendition of alleged technical services. In a situation in which the agent does not render any of the services but secures the business anyway, the agent is entitled to his commission which is computed in terms of a percentage of the value of the order

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

All Gujarat Federation Of Tax Consultants vs. CBDT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 29, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 30, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2015-16
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Strictures passed against CBDT for being lax and delaying issuing of the Forms and then taking adamant stand by not extending due date for filing ROI. CBDT directed to issue order u/s 119 to extend due date for filing ROI to 31.10.2015

The Board while not extending the due date for filing return was also of the view that due date should not be extended just for the benefit of those who have remained lax till now for no valid reason in discharging their legal obligations. It may be noted that despite the fact that ordinarily the ITR Forms which should be prescribed and made available before the 1st of April of the assessment year, have in fact, been made available only on 7th August, 2015 and the assessees are given only seven weeks to file their tax returns. Therefore, laxity, if any, evidently is on the part of the authority which is responsible for the delay in making the utility for E-Filing the return being made available to the assessees. When the default lies at the end of the respondents, some grace could have been shown by the Board instead of taking a stand that such a trend may not be encouraged. Had it not been for the laxity on the part of the respondents in providing the utilities, there would not have been any cause for the petitioners to seek extension of the due date for filing tax returns

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

DCIT vs. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 12, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 27, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09, 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2A) third proviso cannot be interpreted to mean that extension of stay of demand should be denied beyond 365 days even when the assesseee is not at fault. ITAT should make efforts to decide stay granted appeals expeditiously

One cannot lost sight of the fact that there may be number of reasons due to which the learned Tribunal is not in a position to decide and dispose of the appeals within the maximum period of 365 days despite their best efforts. Some of the reasons due to which the learned Tribunal despite its best efforts is not in a position to dispose of the appeal/appeals at the earliest are stated herein above. There cannot be a legislative intent to punish a person/ assessee though there is no fault of the assessee and/or appellant

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Kirit Dayabhai Patel vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 3, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 25, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2002-03
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Immunity against penalty under Expl 5 is available even in return is not filed provided a statement is made during the search, explaining the manner of deriving the income and due tax & interest thereon is paid

In order to get the benefit of immunity under clause(2) of explanation5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, it is not necessary to file the return before the due date provided that the assessee had made a statement, during the search and explained the manner in which the surrendered amount was derived, and paid tax as well as interest on the surrendered amount

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Niko Resources Limited vs. UOI (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 26, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 26, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IB(9): The Explanation to Section 80-IB(9) inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act 2009 w.r.e.f. 1.4.2000 is ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

It is true that legislature is entitled to depart from this meaning and can define it the way it chooses to do so. While doing so, it has to resort to the process known to and approved by law. The explanation introduced by Finance Act (No.2) of 2009 is a departure from the settled interpretative meaning given by Courts to the expression ‘Undertaking”. Any departure, therefore, has to be through the process of validation which has to be notwithstanding any law or decision

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

ACIT vs. Kunvarji Finance Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Ahemdabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 19, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 23, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-06 to 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
(i) Modification to client code of client is not necessarily a mala fide act, (ii) Disclosure made in a statement recorded at unearthly hours cannot be given credence, (iii) if a voluntary disclosure is retracted, the AO has to make addition on the basis of documentary evidence

If a statement is recorded at midnight, much credence cannot be given to such statement because the person would not be in a position to make any correct or conscious disclosure in a statement recorded at odd hours. When the statement made during the course of search has been retracted, then it is duty of the Assessing Officer to make further inquiries

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

DCIT vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 17, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 10, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1996-97
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IA/ 80HHC: Despite the introduction of 'block of assets' depreciation cannot be thrust on the assessee while computing quantum of eligible deduction

Depreciation is optional to the assessee and once he chooses not to claim it, the Assessing Officer cannot allow it while computing the income. Further, once depreciation is optional, it will be optional for block of assets also. It is not necessary that the depreciation is allowable or not allowable as a whole. The assessee can claim it partly also in respect of certain block of assets and not claim in respect of other block of assets. Accordingly, for purposes of sections 80HHC and 80-IA, depreciation not claimed for by the assessee cannot be allowed as a deduction despite the introduction of the concept of block of assets

Posted in All Judgements, High Court

Amitkumar Ambalal Shah vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 30, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 31, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(47): Transfer takes place in year of execution of sale deed, handing over of possession & receipt of sale consideration & is not deferred to year of registration. Verdict in Suraj Lamp and Industries 340 ITR 1 (SC) explained

The Tribunal had to consider whether capital gains are assessable in AY 2008-09, being the year when the sale deed was executed and possession handed over and most of the sale consideration was received or in AY 2009-10 when the

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

All Gujarat Federation of Tax Consultants vs. CBDT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 22, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 26, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Strictures passed against the CBDT for seeking to take advantage of its own wrong and disregarding genuine hardship of taxpayers. Due date for filing ROI extended to 30.11.2014 subject to charge of s. 234A interest


Strictures passed against the CBDT for seeking to take advantage of its own wrong and disregarding genuine hardship of taxpayers. Due date for filing ROI extended to 30.11.2014 subject to charge of s. 234A interest

(vi) The CBDT ought to have responded to the representation. Instead, it chose not to respond but later before this Court in no uncertain terms has termed such a request impermissible on the ground that the grievances are not sustainable. Therefore, considering the larger cause of public good and keeping in mind the requirement of promotion of justice, we chose to exercise the writ of mandamus directing the CBDT to extend the date of filing of return of income to 30.11.2014, which is due date for filing of the TAR as per the Notification dated 20.08.2014. Such extension is granted with the qualification that the same may not result into non-charging of interest u/s 234A

Posted in All Judgements, High Court