Search Results For: Akil Kureshi J


Cenveo Publisher Services India Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 1, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 16, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147 Reopening: If the assessee delays filing objections to the reasons and leaves the AO with little time to dispose of the objections and pass the assessment order before it gets time barred, it destroys the formula provided in Asian Paints 296 ITR 90 (Bom) that the AO should not pass the assessment order for 4 weeks. A writ petition to challenge the reopening will not be entertained

Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Dy. Comm. Of Income Tax & Ors. reported in 296 ITR 90 Bom has provided that if the Assessing Officer does not accept the objections of the assessee, he shall not proceed further in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of said order of objections. The petitioner by its conduct destroyed this formula provided by the Court in the case of Asian Paints (supra), making it impossible for the assessing officer to wait for four weeks after disposal of objections without running the risk of allowing the assessment to be time barred

PCIT vs. Hardik Bharat Patel (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 19, 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:
Capital Gains vs. Business Profits: As per CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2016 dated 29.2.2016 gains on shares held for more than 12 months are treated as long-term capital gains and not as business profits. The fact that the amount invested in shares were out of borrowed funds and there were frequent and voluminous transactions is irrelevant

our attention is drawn to Circular No. 6 of 2016 dated 29.2.2016 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). This circular issued with regard to the issue of taxability of surplus on sale of shares and securities, – whether as capital gain or business income in case of long term holdings of shares and securities i.e in excess of 12 months. It has clarified therein that with a view to reduce litigation and uncertainty in the matter of taxibility, as long term capital gains or business income – the assess has an option to treat the income from sale of listed shares and securities as income arising under the head ‘Long Term Capital Gains’, them the same shall be accepted by the assessing officer

PCIT vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: January 22, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 28, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 45 Capital Gains: The allottee gets title to property on issue of allotment letter. The payment of installments is only a follow­-up action. Taking delivery of possession is only a formality. Accordingly, the date of allotment is the date on which the purchaser of a residential unit can be stated to have acquired the property (CBDT Circulars applied)

It was noted that such allotment is final unless it is cancelled or the allottee withdraw from the scheme and such allotment would be cancelled only under exceptional circumstances. It was noted that the allottee gets title to the property on the issue of allotment letter and the payment of installments was only a follow­up action and taking the delivery of possession is only a formality

Akshar Builders and Developers vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 17, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 28, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Even in a case where return is accepted without scrutiny, the AO cannot proceed mechanically and on erroneous information supplied to him by investigation wing. If AO acts merely upon information submitted by investigation wing and on total lack of application of mind, the reopening is invalid

Even in a case where the return filed by the assessee is accepted without scrutiny, as per the settled law, the Assessing Officer can issue a notice of reopening of assessment provided he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer cannot proceed mechanically and also on erroneous information that may have been supplied to him. In fact, we note that in the present case the Assessing Officer had issued a notice to a wrong person

Saurabh Suryakant Mehta vs. ITO (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: January 17, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 19, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147 Reopening of Bogus Sales/ Purchases: If the AO disallowed 2.5% of alleged bogus purchases during the regular assessment, he cannot reopen on the ground that as per N. K. Proteins Ltd 2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT the entire amount should have been disallowed as this amounts to change of opinion

In other words, during the previous reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the alleged bogus sales of the assessee, taxed 2.25% thereof as assessee’s additional income and passed the order of assessment accordingly. The Assessing Officer now believes that taxing 2.25% of the sales, was an error and instead the entire amount should have been added to the assessee’s income. This would be a mere change of opinion

Ankita A. Choksey vs. ITO (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 19, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147 Reopening of S. 143(1) Intimations: The mere fact that the return is processed u/s 143(1) does not give the AO a carte blanche to issue a reopening notice. The basic condition precedent of 'reason to believe' applies even to s. 143(1) intimations. If the assessee claims the facts recorded in the reasons are not correct, the order on objection must deal with them. Otherwise an adverse inference can be drawn against the Revenue

Even in cases where the return of income has been accepted by processing under Section 143(1) of the Act, reopening of an assessment can only be done when the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The mere fact that the return has been processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, does not give the Assessing Officer a carte blanc to issue a reopening notice

Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt Ltd vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: January 3, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 19, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2): The law in CIT vs. Ramesh Electrical Co 203 ITR 497 (Bom) that failure to deal with an argument does not constitute a 'mistake apparent from the record' does not apply to a case where a fundamental submission is omitted to be considered by the ITAT. The omission is apparent from the record and should be rectified by the ITAT

The Tribunal ignored the fact that the above observation of this Court in Ramesh Electrical (supra) was on the basis that for a rectification application to be maintainable, the mistake should be apparent from the record. In this case, the mistake / error in not dealing with the fundamental submission in appeal is apparent from the record, as the submission that the distribution fee was not royalty was recorded and yet not dealt with in the order

PCIT vs. Perfect Circle India Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 7, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 17, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(ia): The second proviso to s. 40(a)(ia) is beneficial to the assessee and is declaratory and curative in nature. Accordingly, it must be given retrospective effect

Various Courts, however, have seen this proviso as beneficial to the assessee and curative in nature. The leading judgment on this point was of the Division Bench of Delhi Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township P Ltd [2015] 377 ITR 635 (Delhi). The Court held that Section 40(a)(ia) is not a penalty and insertion of second proviso is declaratory and curative in nature and would have retrospective effect form 1.4.2005 i.e the date from the main proviso 40(a)(ia) itself was inserted

CIT vs. Viksit Engineering Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 26, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 5, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Capital Gains vs. Business Profits: Merely holding shares for a short period will not convert capital gain into business income. This would be contrary to be legislative mandate which itself provides that investment held for less than 12 months is to be termed as short term capital gain. If the assessee has two portfolios, one for "Investment" and other for "Trading" and if the investments are out of own funds and not borrowed funds, the gains have to be assessed as STCG

Thus two port-folios one for “Investment” and other for “Trading”. Besides for the earlier years the Revenue accepted the claim of short term capital gain. Thus the income has to be taxed as short term capital gain. We are of the view that respondent holding the shares for a short period, will not convert the capital gain into business income. This would be contrary to be legislative mandate which itself provides that when the investment is held for less than 12 months, it is to be termed as short term capital gain

PCIT vs. The Executor of Estate of Late Smt. Manjula A. Shah (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 11, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 24, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C Capital Gains: The valuation of the stamp authority cannot be adopted for the purpose of collecting capital gain tax in the hands of the assessee if there is a long gap between the date of execution of the MOU and the execution of a formal development agreement

The assessee can be taxed only on the gain which is oozing out from the sale consideration, thus, no adverse inference can be drawn while invoking the provision of section 50C of the Act. No evidence has been produced by the Revenue at any stage that the assessee actually received the value which was adopted by the stamp valuation authority.

Top