Search Results For: A. Mohan Alankamony (AM)


Pankaj Agarwal & Sons (HUF) vs. ITO (ITAT Chennai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 6, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 2, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Capital Gains From Penny Stocks: Plea that opportunity to cross-examine the witness was not given & investigation report was not furnished is not relevant if assessee unable to successfully controvert findings of the AO and such argument was never made before the lower authorities

The company in which the assessees had purchased the equity shares had no creditability and no prudent investor would make such investment. The motive of the price manipulation is only to bring out their black money as legitimately earned Long Term Capital Gain for which exemption U/s.10(38) of the Act is available

Dr. Muthian Sivathanu vs. ACIT (ITAT Chennai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 24, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 21, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 17(2)(vi) Perquisite: Gains arising to an employee from sale of shares allotted under ESOP (Employees Stock Option Plan) by foreign parent company cannot be assessed as "salaries". It is assessable as "capital gains". Fact that employer has shown the gains as "perquisite" in Form 16 is irrelevant

The assessee had already acquired the asset viz., “stock” from the employee’s stock options scheme when he was serving abroad in the parent company and during that assessment year, the assessee was non-resident. Therefore during the beginning of the relevant assessment year, the stock viz., the asset was already vested on the assessee. Any gain on sale arising out of such asset during the relevant assessment year when he is a resident but NOR has to be necessarily treated as capital gain in the hands of the assessee as per the provisions of the act

Dishnet Wireless Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: July 20, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 28, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08 to 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194C/ 194J: No obligation to deduct TDS at stage of making provision for expenditure if payee cannot be identified. No obligation to deduct TDS if services (roaming charges) are rendered without human intervention and are not "technical services"

The assessee has to issue Form 16A prescribed under Rule 31(1)(b) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 for the tax deducted at source. The assessee has to necessarily give the details of name and address of deductee, the PAN of deductee and amount or credited. In this case, the assessee could not identify the name and address of deductee and and his PAN. The assessee also may not be in a position to quantify the amount required for incurring the expenditure for dismantling and restoration of site to its original position. In those circumstances, the provision which requires deduction of tax at source fails. Hence, the assessee cannot be faulted for non-deduction of tax at source while making a provision

G. Indhirani vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 10, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 234E: Prior to the amendment to s. 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the fee for default in filing TDS statements cannot be recovered from the assessee-deductor while processing the s. 200A statement. However, the AO is entitled to pass a separate order u/s 234E to levy the fee within the limitation period

The Assessing Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in levying fee under Section 234E while processing the statement and make adjustment under Section 200A of the Act. Therefore, the impugned intimation of the lower authorities levying fee under Section 234E of the Act cannot be sustained in law. However, it is made clear that it is open to the Assessing Officer to pass a separate order under Section 234E of the Act levying fee provided the limitation for such a levy has not expired

ACIT vs. M. Baskaran (ITAT Chennai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 31, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 15, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: No disallowance can be made if there is no exempt income. Cheminvest (SB) & CBDT Circular are not good law


S. 14A/ Rule 8D: No disallowance can be made if there is no exempt income. Cheminvest (SB) & CBDT Circular are not good law

No doubt in Cheminvest Ltd vs. ITO 121 ITD 318 (SB) the Special Bench of the Tribunal has held that disallowance u/s 14A can be made even in the year in which no exempt income has been earned or received by the assessee. This decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal has been impliedly overruled by the decisions of High Courts in Shivam Motors P Ltd (All HC), CIT vs. Corrtech Energy Pvt. Ltd (Guj HC), CIT vs. Delite Enterprises (Bom HC), CIT vs. Lakhani Marketing (P&H HC), CIT vs. Winsome Textiles Industries Ltd 319 ITR 204 (P&H) where it has been held that when there is no exempt income and no claim for exemption, s. 14A and Rule 8D have no application and no disallowance can be made.

Top