Search Results For: A. T. Varkey (JM)


Baba Bhootnath Trade & Commerce Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 5, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 10, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus Share Capital: The judgement in PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel 103 TM.com 48 (SC) is distinguishable on facts & does not apply to a case where the assessee has discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants by producing the PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments and the investors have shown the source of source & personally appeared before the AO in response to s. 131 summons

The ld DR placed reliance on the recent decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd reported in 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) wherein the decision on addition made towards cash credit was rendered in favour of the revenue. We have gone through the said judgement and we find in that case, the ld AO had made extensive enquiries and from that he had found that some of the investor companies were non-existent which is not the case before us. Certain investor companies did not produce their bank statements proving the source for making investments in assessee company, which is not the case before us. Source of funds were never established by the investor companies in the case before the Hon’ble Apex Court, whereas in the instant case, the entire details of source of source were duly furnished by all the respective share subscribing companies before the ld AO in response to summons u/s 131 of the Act by complying with the personal appearance of directors

Devansh Exports vs. ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 15, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 16, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 92: The information given by DIT (Inv) can only be a basis to ignite/ trigger "reason to suspect". The AO has to carry out further examination to convert the "reason to suspect" into "reason to believe". If the AO acts on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind, the reopening is void (All judgements considered)

Allegations leveled by DIT (Inv.) can only raise suspicion in the mind of the AO which is not the sufficient/requirement of law for reopening of assessment. The ‘reasons to believe’ is not synonymous to ‘reason to suspect’. ‘Reason to suspect’ based on an information can trigger an enquiry to find out whether there is any substance or material to substantiate that there is merit in the information adduced by the DIT(Inv.) and thereafter the AO has to take an independent decision to re-open or not. And the AO should not act on dictate of any other authority like in this case DIT(Inv.) because then it would be borrowed satisfaction

Gautam Jhunjhunwala vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 7, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 13, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(47)/ 54: Though an unregistered agreement to sell does not entitle the parties to seek part performance u/s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it can be a basis for a suit for specific performance in view of s. 49 of the Registration Act. Consequently, even an unregistered agreement creates a right in favour of the buyer and constitutes a "transfer" of the old property u/s 2(47) for purposes of determining whether the purchase of the new property is within one year of the date of "transfer" of the old property

Thus, a right in respect of the capital asset (old residential property in question) has been transferred by the assessee in favour of the vendee/transferee on 16.09.2011 and, therefore, since purchase of the new property on 04.10.2010 which fact has been disputed by the AO/Ld. CIT(A) the purchase of the property is well within one year from the date of transfer as per sec. 2(47) of the Act, therefore, we allow the appeal of the assesse

ITO vs. Wiz-Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 14, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share premium: Addition cannot be made on the ground that the directors of the share subscribers did not turn up before the AO. The assessee can be required to prove only such facts which are in his knowledge. Creditworthiness of the subscriber cannot be disputed by the AO of the assessee but by the AO of the subscriber. If the assessee has discharged its onus to prove identity, creditworthiness & genuineness of the share applicants, the onus shifts to AO to disprove the documents furnished by assessee. In absence of any investigation, much less gathering of evidence by the AO, an addition cannot be sustained merely based on inferences drawn by circumstance (all judgements considered)

To sum up section 68 of the Act provides that if any sum found credited in the year in respect of which the assessee fails to explain the nature and source shall be assessed as its undisclosed income. In the facts of the present case, both the nature & source of the share application received was fully explained by the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants. The PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments were placed on AO’s record. Accordingly all the three conditions as required u/s. 68 of the Act i.e. the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was placed before the AO and the onus shifted to AO to disprove the materials placed before him. Without doing so, the addition made by the AO is based on conjectures and surmises cannot be justified

Surya Prakash Toshniwal HUF vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 14, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus capital gains from penny stocks: Long-term capital gains claimed exempt u/s 10(38) cannot be treated as bogus unexplained income if the paper work is in order. The fact that the Company whose shares were sold has violated SEBI norms and is not traceable does not mean that the assessee is at fault

The lower authorities have not brought on record any concrete evidence for disallowing the long term capital gain of the assessee. The AO should have issued notices and summons to M/s RFL and ACPL under section 133(6) and 131 of the Act for the production of the necessary financial information before rejecting the claim of the assessee. We find that all the necessary information which were available with the assessee had been brought on record by the assessee before the lower authorities. In case ACPL has not filed the financial statements with the stock exchange then the assessee for the fault of ACPL cannot be held guilty under the income tax proceedings. The assessee in the instant case has made the transactions for the sale and purchase of the shares through a valid stock broker who was in existence at the relevant time with the stock exchange and this fact has not been doubted by the lower authorities. In view of the above we hold that the lower authorities had not brought on record sufficient reasons for disallowing the claim of the assessee

ITO vs. Emami Paper Mills Ltd (ITAT Kolkata)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 4, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 14, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(vii)/ Article 12: There is a difference between a 'contract of work' and a ‘contract of service’. In a 'contract of work', the activity is predominantly physical while in a 'contract of service', the dominant feature of the activity is intellectual. Fees paid with respect to a ‘contract of work’ does not constitute "fees for technical services" and consequently the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS u/s 195

There is a difference between ‘Contract of work and ‘Contract of service’. The two words convey different ideas. In the ‘Contract of work’ the activity is predominantly physical; it is tangible. In the activity referred as ‘Contract of service’, the dominant feature of the activity is intellectual, or at least, mental. Certainly, ‘Contract of work’ also involves intellectual exercise to some extent. Even a gardener has to bestow sufficient care in doing his job; so is the case with a mason, carpenter or a builder. But the physical (tangible) aspect is more dominant than the intellectual aspect. In contrast, in the case of rendering any kind of ‘service’, intellectual aspect plays the dominant role. In the case under consideration, the scope of work mentioned in the agreement clearly explains that it is ‘contract of work’ to dismantle the machinery, therefore, it is not a ‘contract of service’ hence payment by the assessee is not for technical services, therefore, the assessee company is not liable to deduct TDS

GE Money Financial Services Pvt Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 2, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 7, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 92(2): Important principles of law laid down with regard to the “Need Test”, “Evidence Test” or “Rendition Test” to evaluate the ALP of intra-group services rendered by an Associated Enterprise and whether the TPO has the right to determine the ALP at ‘Nil’

Rendering of services must be seen from the view point of the assessee and further assessee cannot be asked to keep and maintain evidences of services rendered by AE higher than which is expected from a businessman receiving services from an unrelated provider. Therefore, we reject the view point of Ld. TPO and Ld. DRP that assessee has not shown the receipt of the services. In view of above we are of the view that assessee has justified the receipt of services and satisfied the rendition test

Samwon Precision Mould Mfg. (India) P. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 2, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 10, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 145: Books of account cannot be rejected on an arbitrary basis

It is a subsidiary of a Korean Company and, therefore, the authorities below had to be circumspect before arriving at such a conclusion, particularly when there is no iota of material to doubt the quantitive details, audited results vis-a-vis the turnover and profit declared so as to warrant rejection. Instances of irregularities in cash payment cannot warrant ipso facts rejecting of books of accounts, at best disallowance could have been made u/s 40A (3) of the Act

Chopra Properties vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 21, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 20, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271B: The requirement in s. 44AB that the the tax audit report has to be obtained "before" the specified date has to be interpreted to mean "on or before" the specified date. So, even if the audit report is obtained "on" the specified date, there is no default

The term “before” specified date in section 44AB means “on or before” the specified date. Therefore, though audit report is signed on 30th September 2008 and the requirement of law is to be construed as tax audit report required to be obtained on or before 30th September 2008. Hence, the assessee has obtained tax audit report in time and there is no default u/s 271B. In Prem Chand Nathmal Kothari vs. Kishanlal Bachharaj Vyas & Ors dated 5th April 1975 reported in AIR 1976 Bombay 82 the Bombay High Court, relying on the Chambers Dictionary, held that word ‘before’ means ‘previous to the expiration of’. Therefore, before 30th September, 2008 means before the end of 30th September 2008

Simran Singh Gambhir vs. DDIT (ITAT Delhi)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 21, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 1, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Offering interest on maturity on Bonds as “long-term capital gains” instead of as “income from other sources” is a mere change in the head of income and a case of bona fide mistake which does not attract penalty

The interest of all the three years was offered to tax in the year of maturity and not year-wise. This is just change in the head of income under which the income is offered to tax. The taxation of the receipt is changed to the head of income ‘other sources’ from the head of income ‘capital gain’. The explanation filed by the assessee is bona fide. This is a case of a bona fide mistake on part of the assessee

Top