Search Results For: ITAT Mumbai


Spectrum Coal & Power Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 3, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 17, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2000-01 to 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 43(1) Explanation 10: The law laid down in PJ Chemicals 210 ITR 830 (SC) that only a subsidy or grant given to offset the cost of an asset can be reduced from the "actual cost" of the asset and not a general subsidy continues to hold good even after the insertion of Explanation 10 to s. 43(1). A subsidy/ grant from a foreign sovereign Country does not fall within Expl 10 because the foreign Country is not a "person" as defined in s. 2(31)

We have also gone through the provisions of Section 43(1) as well as Explanation 10 thereof. We noted that Section 43(1) defines the actual cost to mean the actual cost of the assets of the assessee reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by other person or authority. In the impugned case, we noted that what the ICICI has financed by way of conditional grant to the assessee is the amount received from USA under the project grant agreement for the Program for Acceleration of Commercial Energy Research. Now the question arises whether USA can be regarded to be a person or authority. In our view, this provision cannot be read without Explanation 10. From the reading of the said explanation, it is explicitly clear that if a portion of a cost of an asset acquired by the assessee has been met directly or indirectly by Central Government or State Government or any authority established under any law or by any other person in the form of a subsidy or a grant or reimbursement, said subsidy grant or reimbursement as is relatable to the asset shall be reduced out of the actual cost of the assessee to the assessee. USA is a sovereign and cannot be Central Government or State Government or any authority established by any law in India

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

DCIT vs. Hita Land Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 25, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 1, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2): The amendment by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f. 01.06.2016 to specify the time limit of 6 months to file a rectification application applies even to applications filed with respect to appeal orders passed prior to the date of the amendment. The Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing a Miscellaneous Application

It is to be noted that the earlier period of ‘four years’ has been substituted with ‘six months’ by the Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 01/06/2016. However, we find that no distinction has been made in this section between orders passed before 01/06/2016 and orders passed after 01/06/2016. Moreover, the Tribunal order was dated 22/03/2013 and therefore, the Revenue had ample time to go through the same and pin point the mistakes in the order but it has failed to do so. Therefore, we find no force in these miscellaneous petitions primarily because of the reason that the Statute does not authorize us to entertain any petition which has been filed u/s 254(2) at any time beyond a period of six months from the date of the order

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

John Fowler (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 25, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 24, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C: The AO is not entitled to make an addition to the sale consideration declared by the assessee if the difference between the valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority and that declared by the assessee is less than 10%

In Honest Group of Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2002) 177 CTR (J&K) 232 it was held that when the margin between the value as given by the assessee and the Departmental valuer was less than 10 per cent, the difference is liable to be ignored and the addition made by the AO cannot be sustained. Since in the instant case such difference is less than 10 per cent and considering the fact that valuation is always a matter of estimation where some degree of difference is bound to occur, we are of the considered opinion that the AO in the instant case is not justified in substituting the sale consideration

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Crescent Construction Co vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 26, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 15, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 148: Entire law on reopening of assessments in the context of "change of opinion" vs. "failure to apply mind", with reference to s. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and all judgements on the point discussed

Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, is permissive and not a mandatory provision. Nine situations by way of illustrations are stated, which are by way of example or guidelines. As a permissive provision it enables to judge to support his judgment but there is no scope of presumption when facts are known. Presumption of facts under section 114 is rebuttable. The presumption raised under illustration (e) to section 114 of the Act means that when an official act is proved to have been done, it will be presumed to have been regularly done but it does not raise any presumption that an act was done for which there is no evidence or proof

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Kamla Devi S. Doshi vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 22, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 2, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus penny stocks capital gain: The s. 131 statement implicating the assessee is not sufficient to draw an adverse inference against the assessee when the documentary evidence in the form of contract notes, bank statements, STT payments etc prove genuine purchase and sale of the penny stock. Failure to provide cross-examination is a fatal error

The A.O had chosen to merely rely on the stand alone statement of Sh. Mukesh Choksi (supra) and taking the same as gospel truth, had therein drawn adverse inferences in the hands of the assessee by merely referring to the said statement of Sh. Mukesh Choksi (supra). We though do not approve of the reliance placed by the A.O on the stand alone statement of Sh. Mukesh Choksi (supra) for drawing of adverse inferences in respect of the share transactions carried out by the assessee during the year under consideration, but rather find that even no cross examination of Sh. Mukesh Choksi (supra), whose statement was so heavily being relied upon by the A.O, was ever provided to the assessee. We find that the failure on the part of the A.O to provide cross examination of the person, relying on whose statement adverse inferences are drawn in the hands of the assessee goes to the very root of the validity of such adverse inferences drawn in the hands of the assessee, had been looked into by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT-13 Vs. M/s Ashish International (ITA No 4299 of 2009; dated. 22.02.2011), wherein the order of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court. We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, are neither able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the adverse inferences drawn by the lower authorities in respect of the share transactions of the assessee by referring to the stand alone statement of Sh. Mukesh Choksi, as the same as observed by us hereinabove, suffer from serious infirmities, and as such cannot be summarily accepted, nor are able to dislodge the genuineness of the purchase and sale of shares of the aforesaid 10,200 shares of M/s Talent Infoways Ltd., which we find had been duly substantiated by the assessee on the basis of material made available on record, which we find had not been dislodged by the lower authorities

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Arceli Realty Limited vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: April 21, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: Entire law on the onus of the assessee and the department with regard to the genuineness of the share capital explained in the light of several judgements . Law on effect of not giving cross-examination to the assessee also explained

The assessee duly furnished the proof of identity like PAN, bank account details from the bank, other relevant material, genuineness of the transaction, payment through banking channel and even the source of source, therefore, the assessee has proved the conditions laid down u/s 68 of the Act. It is also noted that in spite of repeated request, the Ld. Assessing Officer did not provide opportunity to cross examine the concerned persons and even the relevant information and allegation, if any, made therein, which has been used against the assessee, was not provided to the assessee. At this stage, we add here that mere information is not enough rather it has to be substantiated with facts. The information may and may not be correct. For fastening the liability upon anybody, the Department has to provide the authenticity of the information to the person against whom such information is used. The principle of natural justice, demands that without confronting the assessee of such evidence, if any, or the information, no addition can be made. Even otherwise, as per Article-265 of the Constitution of India, only legitimate taxes has to be levied and collected

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Balgopal Trust vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 3, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 26, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 54F: U/s 161, a trust which is for the sole benefit of an individual, has to be assessed as an “individual” and not as an “AOP”. Consequently, a trust is eligible for s. 54F deduction

The issue is as to whether the assessee trust, which is for the sole benefit of an individual, will be entitled to deduction u/s. 54F or not, when its status is that of A.O.P. As per Section 54F the benefits of this section is available to individual or Hindu undivided family (HUF). Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mrs. Amy F. Cama vs. CIT 237 ITR 82 has elaborately considered the same issue. The jurisdictional High Court was dealing with assessee trust’s claim for deduction for purchase price of the flat from capital gain as per Section 54 of the Act. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has held that the assessee trust was entitled for the same. The Hon’ble Court had expounded that Section 161 of the I.T Act, 1961, makes a representative assessee subject to the same duties, responsibilities and liabilities as if the income was received by him beneficially. The fiction is created as it was never the object or intention of the Act to charge tax upon persons other than the beneficial owner of the income. Whatever benefits the beneficiary will get in the said assessment must be made available to the trustee while assessing him under section 161

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Jehangir HC Jehangir vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 17, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 25, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): 'Furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' and 'concealment of particulars of income' have different connotations. The failure by the AO to specify in the s. 274 notice which of the two charges is applicable reflects non-application of mind and is in breach of natural justice as it deprives the assessee of an opportunity to contest. The penalty proceedings have to be quashed

A perusal of the quantum assessment order reveals that the penalty has been initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particulars of income which, as per settled legal propositions, are different connotations and carry different meaning and two separate limbs. The same also becomes clear from the language of show-cause notice which states that the assessee have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Finally, the penalty has been levied for filing of inaccurate particulars of income and hence concealed particulars of income which shows inconsistent thinking on the part of AO. Undisputedly, the AO was required to specify the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized which he has failed to do so and the same has resulted into taking away assessee’s valuable right of contesting the same and thereby violates the principles of natural justice

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal

Geolife Organics vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 5, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 23, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 69C Bogus purchases: (i) The AO is not entitled to treat the purchases as bogus merely on the basis of information from the sales-tax dept. He has to make independent inquiry, (ii) Fact that the vendors did not respond to s. 133(6) notices & the assessee did not produce them is not sufficient if the documentation is in order and payments are through banking channels

It is evident from the assessment order that on the basis of information obtained from the Sales Tax Department, Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6). As the assessee failed to produce the concerned parties, the Assessing Officer, primarily relying upon the information obtained from the Sales Tax Department held the purchases to be bogus and added 12.5% profit in addition to the normal profit declared by the assessee. Though, it may be a fact that assessee was not able to produce the concerned parties before the Assessing Officer, for whatever may be the reason, fact remains that during assessment proceedings itself the assessee had produced confirmed ledger copies of concerned parties, bank account statement, purchase bills, delivery challans, etc., to prove the genuineness of the purchases. It is also a fact on record that the Assessing Officer has not doubted the sales effected by the assessee. Thus, it is logical to conclude that without corresponding purchases being effected the assessee could not have made the sales. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to conclusively establish the fact that purchases are bogus

Posted in All Judgements, Tribunal