Search Results For: Ved Jain


PCIT vs. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 17, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 9, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital in form of accommodation entries: The transactions are clearly sham and make-believe with excellent paper work to camouflage their bogus nature. The reasoning is contrary to human probabilities. In the normal course of conduct, no one will make investment of such huge amounts without being concerned about the return and safety of such investment. The Tribunal's order is clearly superficial and adopts a perfunctory approach and ignores evidence and material referred to in the assessment order

The transactions in question were clearly sham and make-believe with excellent paper work to camouflage their bogus nature. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is clearly superficial and adopts a perfunctory approach and ignores evidence and material referred to in the assessment order. The reasoning given is contrary to human probabilities, for in the normal course of conduct, no one will make investment of such huge amounts without being concerned about the return and safety of such investment

ACIT vs. RJ Corp Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 1, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 6, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Tax Planning: The fact that the assessee bought and sold shares of groups concerns with a view to book loss and off-set the capital gains from another transaction does not mean that the loss can be treated as bogus if the documentation is in order. The loss cannot be treated as "speculation loss" under the Explanation to s. 73 because the shares were held as investments

The claim of assessee-company is supported by the documents on record. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) rightly came to the finding that the assessee-company has genuinely entered into purchase and sale of shares and if any, loss have been suffered by the assessee-company, A.O. cannot treat the same as non-genuine due to extraneous considerations or irrelevant reasons in the assessment order

Meenu Goel vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 19, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 24, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Capital gains from penny stocks: Capital gains from penny stocks cannot be assessed as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 if the assessee has produced documentary evidence to prove the source, identity and genuineness of the transaction and the AO has not found any fault with it. The fact that the investigation dept has alleged that there is a modus operandi of bogus LTCG scheme is not relevant if the same is not substantiated

I further note that the addition in dispute made by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 68 as unexplained credit instead of long term capital gain as claimed by the assessee, however, the source, identity and genuineness of the transaction having been established by documentary evidences and there is no case for making addition u/s 68 of the Act, hence, the same deserve to be deleted. I note that in most of the case laws of the Hon’ble High Courts referred by the Ld. DR the reason on the basis of addition was confirmed was that the assessee had not tendered cogent evidence with regard to share transaction, however, in the present the case assessee has submitted all the documents / evidences, therefore, the case laws relied by the Ld. DR are based on distinguished facts and circumstances

Umbrella Projects Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 23, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 6, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: If the assessee has discharged the initial onus regarding the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness, the onus shifts to the AO to bring material or evidence to discredit the same. The fact that the shareholders did not respond to s. 133(6) summons is not sufficient to draw an adverse inference. There must be material to implicate the assessee in a collusive arrangement with person who are accommodation entry providers

In view of the above documents and evidences filed by the assessee, we are of the opinion that these are sufficient to discharge its initial onus regarding the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness as required under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee having discharged its onus, it was upon the AO to bring material or evidence to discredit the same. In the present case, from the assessment order, it is evident that no adverse material is available with the AO

Pr CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt Ltd (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 1, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 12, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06 to 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68: Statements recorded u/s 132 (4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. A copy of the statement together with the opportunity to cross-examine the deponent has to provided to the assessee. If the statement is retracted and/or if cross-examination is not provided, the statement has to be discarded. The onus of ensuring the presence of the deponent cannot be shifted to the assessees. The onus is on the Revenue to ensure his presence

A copy of the statement of Mr. Tarun Goyal, recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act, was not provided to the Assessees. Mr. Tarun Goyal was also not offered for the cross-examination. The remand report of the AO before the CIT(A) unmistakably showed that the attempts by the AO, in ensuring the presence of Mr. Tarun Goyal for cross-examination by the Assessees, did not succeed. The onus of ensuring the presence of Mr. Tarun Goyal, whom the Assessees clearly stated that they did not know, could not have been shifted to the Assessees. The onus was on the Revenue to ensure his presence. Apart from the fact that Mr. Tarun Goyal has retracted his statement, the fact that he was not produced for cross-examination is sufficient to discard his statement. Statements recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal (supra)

Knorr-Bremse India Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 24, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 2, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: Whether a transaction is entered into at an Arm’s Length Price or not must depend upon the facts of each case relating to the transaction per-se. The fact that the transaction has not yielded results or has resulted in a loss is irrelevant

The answer to the issue whether a transaction is at an arm’s length price or not is not dependent on whether the transaction results in an increase in the assessee’s profit. This would be contrary to the established manner in which business is conducted by people and by enterprises. Business decisions are at times good and profitable and at times bad and unprofitable. Business decisions may and, in fact, often do result in a loss. The question whether the decision was commercially sound or not is not relevant. The only question is whether the transaction was entered into bona fide or not or whether it was sham and only for the purpose of diverting the profits

Pr. CIT vs. M Tech India P. Ltd (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 19, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 25, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(vi): While consideration paid to acquire the right to use software is assessable as "royalty", payments made for purchase of software as a product is not for use or the right to use the software and is not assessable as "royalty"

In the cases where an Assessee acquires the right to use a software the payment so made would amount to royalty. However in cases where the payments are made for purchase of software as a product, the consideration paid cannot be considered to be for use or the right to use the software. It is well settled that where software is sold as a product it would amount to sale of goods. In the case of Tata Consultancy Services v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2004) 271 ITR 401 (SC), the Supreme Court examined the transactions relating to the purchase and sale of software recorded on a CD in the context of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The court held the same to be goods within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the said Act and consequently exigible to sales tax under the said Act. Clearly, the consideration paid for purchase of goods cannot be considered as ‘royalty’. Thus, it is necessary to make a distinction between the cases where consideration is paid to acquire the right to use a patent or a copyright and cases where payment is made to acquire patented or a copyrighted product/ material. In cases where payments are made to acquire products which are patented or copyrighted, the consideration paid would have to be treated as a payment for purchase of the product rather than consideration for use of the patent or copyright

Riviera Home Furnishing vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 19, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 29, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10B: Deemed Export Drawback, Customer claims, Freight subsidy & Interest on fixed deposit receipts (under lien for LC & bank guarantee) are all derived from the undertaking & are eligible for deduction

The Court fails to appreciate as to how the ITAT could have held that this transaction did not arise from the business of the export of goods. Even as regards freight subsidy, the Assessee’s contention was that it had received the subsidy in respect of the business carried on and the said subsidy was part of the profit of the business of the undertaking. If the ITAT was prepared to consider the deemed export draw back as eligible for deduction then there was no justification for excluding the freight subsidy

Unique Metal Industries vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 28, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 20, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Reopening solely on the basis of information received from another AO that the assessee has booked bogus bills but without independent application of mind to the information renders the reopening void

At the time of recording of the reasons the Assessing Officer apparently was not having any idea about the nature of the transactions entered into by the assessee. In the reasons recorded there is no mention about the nature of the transactions. As per provision of section 147 the reasons to believe has to be that of the Assessing Officer and further there have to be application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was also not aware of the nature of the accommodation entries. In the reasons recorded he has simply mentioned the names of the party and the amount and nowhere has stated the nature of such entry. This also shows that the Assessing Officer has made no effort to look into the return of the assessee which was available with him

CIT vs. Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 18, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 18, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): Cost of Employees Stock Option (ESOP) debited to P&L A/c is allowable business expenditure

The question sought to be projected by the Revenue is whether the ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,28,19,169/- made by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) by way of disallowance of the expenses debited as cost of Employees Stock Option (‘ESOP’) in profit and loss account?

Top