Search Results For: Domestic Tax


CIT vs. Alpha G. Corp Development Ltd (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 25, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 11, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09, 2011-12, 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: Though, after Maxopp Investment 402 ITR 640 (SC), even "strategic investments" have to be considered for disallowance, the assessee is entitled to contend that the investments are "legacy" or "one-time" and that there is in fact no expenditure incurred to earn the tax-free income

It is apparent from a reading of the facts in the appeal that the CIT(A) formed an opinion based upon diverse reasoning, having regard to the facts of each case, regarding the nature of expenditure and especially whether it was a one-time investment opportunity availed of by the assessee. This is relevant in the context of assessee’s assertion that in fact no expenditure was incurred while investing in the mutual funds that yielded substantial income. As to whether in fact no expenditure was incurred or attributable at all, in these circumstances, it becomes a factual controversy requiring further hearing and scrutiny.

Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 25, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 11, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(38) Bogus Capital Gains From Penny Stocks: U/s 101 of Evidence Act, 1972, the onus is on the assessee to prove that the LTCG is genuine. The assessee cannot, on failure to establish a prima facie case, take advantage of the weakness in the AO's case. The jump in the share price of a company of unknown credentials cannot be an accident or windfall but is possible because of manipulations in a pre-planned manner by interested broker and entry operators. The LTCG transactions are a sham

Documents submitted as evidences to prove the genuineness of transaction are themselves found to serve as smoke screen to cover up the true nature of the transactions in the facts and circumstances of the case as it is revealed that purchase and sale of shares are arranged transactions to create bogus profit in the garb of tax exempt long terra capital gain by well organised network of entry providers with the sole motive to sell such entries to enable the beneficiary to account for the undisclosed income for a consideration or commission. I further find that the share transactions leading to long term capital gains by the assessee are sham transaction entered into for the purpose of evading tax.

Rashmi Metaliks Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 1, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 11, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09 to 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Natural Justice: The assessee cannot be kept in the dark. Adverse statements or materials cannot be kept away from his eyes. If the AO intends to use it to draw adverse inference/finding, the assessee should be provided the adverse material/statements in order to rebut/cross examine the provider/maker of the adverse material. Failure to do so is a serious flaw which renders the assessment a nullity (All imp judgements referred)

It has to be kept in mind that the AO is empowered to collect materials behind the back of the assessee, however if he intends to use it adversely against the assessee, then it is incumbent upon him to furnish a copy of the materials/statements to the assessee and the assessee should be provided an opportunity to rebut/cross examine the provider/maker of the adverse material. The assessee cannot be kept in the dark and the adverse statements or materials cannot be kept away from his eyes, and if the AO was intending to use it against the assessee to draw adverse inference/finding, then the assessee should be provided the adverse material/statements in order to rebut/cross examine the provider/maker of the adverse material, which is a natural right of the assessee and we find that it has not been done in this case, resulting in violation of natural justice. We are therefore of the considered view that the general statements recorded from the alleged entry operators by themselves with the legal infirmities pointed out, supra, did not constitute incriminating material for the purposes of Section 153A of the Act

The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd vs. CIT (Kerala High Court) (Full Bench)

COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 19, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 10, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80P(4): The AO is not obliged to grant deduction by merely looking at the certificate of registration issued by the competent authority under the Co-op Societies Act. Instead, he has to conduct an enquiry into the factual situation as to the activities of the assessee and arrive at a conclusion whether benefits can be extended or not. Chirakkal 384 ITR 490 (Ker) overruled. Antony Pattukulangara 2012 (3) KHC 726 & Perinthalmanna 363 ITR 268 (Ker) approved. Citizen Co-operative Society 397 ITR 1 (SC) followed)

In Chirakkal, the Divjsion Bench did not notice the earlier judgment in Perinthalmanna. After referring to the provisions under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Banking Regulation Actl 1949 the Division Bench held that the certificate of registration issued by the Department categorizing the assessee as Primary Agricultural Credit Society could be reIied on solely to grant deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act

Nice Bombay Transport (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 19, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 4, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A Rule 8D disallowance of shares held as stock-in-trade: Though Maxopp Investment 402 ITR 640 (SC) rejects the theory of dominant purpose in making investment, it makes a clear distinction between dividend earned on shares acquired for controlling interest & shares purchased as stock-in-trade. In the case of the latter, it is only by a quirk of fate that the shares were held by the assessee when the dividend was declared. Accordingly, s. 14A & Rule 8D do not apply to shares held as stock-in-trade

Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, while rejecting the theory of dominant purpose in making investment in shares-whether it was to acquire and retain controlling interest in the other company or to make profits out of the trading activity in such shares – clearly made a clear distinction between the dividend earned in respect of the shares which were acquired by the assessee in their exercise to acquire and retain the controlling interest in the investee company, and the shares that were purchased for the purpose of liquidating those shares whenever the share price goes up, in order to earn profits. It is, therefore, clear that though not the dominant purpose of acquiring the shares is a relevant for the purpose of invoking the provisions under section 14 A of the Act, the shares held as stock in trade stand on a different pedestal in relation to the shares that were acquired with an intention to acquire and retain the controlling interest in the investee company

Kapil Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 3, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 4, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Section 54F is a beneficial provision and should be liberally interpreted. An assessee who has purchased a house property is entitled to exemption u/s 54F despite the fact that construction activities of the new house has started before the date of sale of the original asset (Bharti Mishra 265 CTR 374 (Del) & Kuldeep Singh 270 CTR 561 (Del) followed)

In J. R. Suhramanya Bhat (supra). Karnataka High Court noticed language of Section 54 which stipulated that the assessee should within one year from the dale of transfer purchase, or within a period of two years thereafter, construct a residential house to avail of concession under the said Section. The contention of the Revenue that construction of the new building had commenced earlier to the sale of the original asset, it was observed, cannot bar or prevent the assessee from taking benefit of Section 54 II was immaterial when the construction commenced, the sole and important consideration as per the Section was that the construction should he completed within the specified period

CIT vs. Union Bank Of India (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: , , , ,
DATE: April 16, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 30, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 115JB (pre amendment by Finance Act, 2012) is not applicable to a banking company (also insurance & electricity cos) . The mechanism provided for computing book profit in terms of S. 115JB(2) is wholly unworkable for a banking company. When the machinery provision fails, the charging section also fails. The anomaly was removed by the Finance Act, 2012. However, the amendments are neither declaratory nor clarificatory but make substantive and significant legislative changes which are applicable prospectively (Kerala State Electricity Board 329 ITR 91 (Ker) followed)

These amendments in section 115JB are neither declaratory nor classificatory but make substantive and significant legislative changes which are admittedly applied prospectively. The memorandum explaining the provision of the Finance Bill, 2012 while explaining the amendments under Section 115JB of the Act notes that in case of certain companies such as insurance, banking and electricity companies, they are allowed to prepare the profit and loss account in accordance with the sections specified in their regulatory Acts. To align the Income Tax Act with the Companies Act, 1956 it was decided to amend Section 115JB to provide that the companies which are not required under Section 211 of the Companies Act, to prepare profit and loss account in accordance with Schedule VI of the Companies Act, profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the provisions of their regulatory Act shall be taken as basis for computing book profit under Section 115 JB of the Act.

Lovy Ranka vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 1, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 30, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C Capital Gains: Though s. 50C is a deeming provision and the AO is obliged to compute the capital gains by taking the valuation arrived at by the DVO in place of the actual consideration received by the assessee, the assessee is entitled to challenge the correctness of the DVO's valuation before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The DVO has to be given an opportunity of hearing

It is sufficient, for our purposes, to take note of the fact that the provisions of Section 23A(1)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, “shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act”. Section 23A(1)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act provides that “Any person……. objecting to any order of the Valuation Officer under section 35 having the effect of enhancing the valuation of any asset or refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under the said section ……………may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessment or order, as the case may be, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner …”. In effect thus, by the virtue of Section 23A(1)(i) being incorporated, with necessary modifications, in Section 50C, the correctness of a DVO’s report can indeed be challenged. It is, however, also important to note that the provisions of Section 23A(6) of the Wealth Tax Act shall, with necessary modifications, also apply in the present context- as has been provided in Section 50C(2) itself

CIT vs. Gujarat Cypromet Ltd (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 21, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 29, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 43B: The conversion of outstanding interest into loan does not amount to "actual payment" of the interest in order to qualify for deduction in view of the retrospective insertion of Explanation 3C to s. 43B (Eicher Motors 315 ITR 312 (MP) & Pennar Profiles (T&AP) approved)

Expln. 3C has now in clear terms provided that such conversion of interest amount into loan shall not be deemed to be regarded as “actually paid” amount within the meaning of Section 43B. In view of clear legislative mandate removing this doubt and making the intention of legislature clear in relation to such transaction, it is not now necessary for this Court to interpret the unamended Section 43B in detail, nor it is necessary for this Court to take note of facts in detail as also the submissions urged in support of various contentions except to place reliance on Expln. 3C to Section 43B and answer the questions against the assessee and in favour of Revenue

PCIT vs. Yes Bank Ltd (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 15, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 29, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 260A: The High Court cannot hear the appeal bipartite without framing any substantial question of law. It should either dismiss the appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal does not involve any substantial question or hear the parties after framing a question (see also PCIT vs. A. A. Estate Pvt. Ltd (SC)

The High Court did not frame any substantial question of law as is required to be framed under Section 260A of the Act though heard the appeal bipartite. In other words, the High Court did not dismiss the appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law; Second, the High Court dismissed the appeal without deciding any issue arising in the case saying that it is not necessary

Top