Search Results For: B. N. Karia J


PCIT vs. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 7, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 29, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Even a s. 143(1) assessment cannot be reopened without proper 'reason to believe'. If the reasons state that the information received from the VAT Dept that the assessee entered into bogus purchases "needed deep verification", it means the AO is reopening for doing a 'fishing or roving inquiry' without proper reason to believe, which is not permissible

It is equally well settled that the notice of reopening can be supported on the basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. He cannot supplement such reasons. The third principle of law which is equally well settled and which would apply in the present case is that reopening of the assessment would not be permitted for a fishing or a roving inquiry. This can as well be seen as part of the first requirement of the Assessing Officer having reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. In other words, notice of reopening which is issued barely for making fishing inquiry, would not satisfy this requirement

PCIT vs. Nova Technocast Pvt Ltd (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 9, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 26, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9/ 40(a)(i)/ 195: Explanation 2 to s. 195(1) inserted by Finance Act 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962 has bearing while ascertaining payments made to non-residents is taxable under the Act or not. However, it does not change the fundamental principle that there is an obligation to deduct TDS only if the sum is chargeable to tax under the Act. If the conclusion is arrived that such payment does not entail tax liability of the payee under the Act, s. 195(1) does not apply

It is indisputably true that such explanation inserted with retrospective effect provides that obligation to comply with subsection [1] of Section 195 would extend to any person resident or non-resident, whether or not non-resident person has a residence or place of business or business connections in India or any other persons in any manner whatsoever in India. This expression which is added for removal of doubt is clear from the plain language thereof, may have a bearing while ascertaining whether certain payment made to a non-resident was taxable under the Act or not. However, once the conclusion is arrived that such payment did not entail tax liability of the payee under the Act, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre P. Limited [Supra], sub-section [1] of Section 195 of the Act would not apply

Mehsana District Co-operative vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 6, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 3, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 92CB Transfer Pricing Safe Harbour Rules: If the assessee has exercised the safe harbour option under Rule 10THD(1) & the AO has not passed any order under rule 10THD(4) declaring the exercising of option to be invalid, the option is treated as valid. Thereafter, the Transfer Pricing regime does not apply & the AO has no authority to make any reference to the TPO to ascertain the arm's length price of the assessee's specified domestic transactions. CBDT's circular dated 10.3.2006 could not have and does not lay down anything to the contrary

In the present case, admittedly, after the petitioner exercised such an option, the Assessing Officer passed no order under subrule (4) of rule 10THD declaring that the exercising of option was invalid. In terms of subrule (7) and subrule (8) of the said rule, therefore, the option exercised by the assessee would be treated as valid. Once this conclusion is reached, it follows as a natural and necessary corollary that the Transfer Pricing regime would not apply. That being the case, the Assessing Officer had no authority to make any reference to the TPO to ascertain the arm’s length price of the petitioner’s specified domestic transactions. Reference itself was therefore, invalid. CBDT’s circular dated 10.3.2006 could not have and does not lay down anything to the contrary. The circular merely prescribes the circumstances under which the Assessing Officer would make reference to the TPO. Nowhere does the circular provide that as soon as such circumstances exist, the Assessing Officer would make a reference to the TPO, irrespective of the fact that the assessee had opted for safe harbour and such option was treated or deemed to be treated as validly exercised. Legally speaking, CBDT could not have given any such directive. Eventually no such directive can be discerned from the circular.

Liladhar T Khushlani vs. Commissioner of Customs (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 25, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
For purposes of filing a rectification application, the period of limitation of six months commences from the date of receipt of the order sought to be rectified by the assessee and not from the date of passing of the order

The second part of the Section requires that the Tribunal shall make such amendments if the mistake is brought to its notice by either party to the appeal before it. The party to the appeal can bring the fact of apparent mistake on record only after going through the order made by the tribunal. Therefore, to read that the period of limitation has to computed at any time within six months from the date of the order does not fit in either with legislative intent or the language employed by the provision.

15. There is another angle from which the matter can be approached. It is only the party to the appeal who finds that the order contains a mistake apparent from the record and is aggrieved by such mistake, would be in a position to move an application seeking rectification of the order. Therefore also, unless and until a party to the appeal is in a position to go through and study the order it would not be possible, nor can it be envisaged, that a party can claim to be aggrieved by the mistake apparent from the record. Hence, even on this count the period of limitation has to be read and understood so as to mean from the date of the receipt of the order

Jagdish Gandabhai Shah vs. Pr CIT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 28, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 1, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 220(6): CBDT's instruction dated 29.02.2016 on stay of demand by the AO does not require the assessee to make a pre-deposit of 15% of the disputed demand. As per the Instruction, if the AO requires the assessee to pay less, or more, than 15% of the demand, the sanction of the Pr. CIT is required. If the AO demands 15% to be paid, the assessee is entitled to approach the Pr CIT for review of the AO's decision

The interpretation by the Assessing Officer that at the time of submitting stay application and/or before stay application is taken up for consideration on merits, the assessee is required to deposit 15% of the disputed demand as pre-deposit is absolutely based on misinterpretation and/or misreading of the modified Instructions dated 29th February 2016. What Clause-4 provides is that the Assessing Officer may/shall grant stay of demand till disposal of first appeal on payment of 15% of the disputed demand, unless the case falls in the category mentioned in para 4 [B] of the modified instructions dated 29th February 2016. Under the circumstances, the impugned decision of the respondent no. 2 in rejecting the stay application and consequently directing the petitioner to deposit 100% of the disputed demand on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited 15% of the disputed demand as a pre-deposit before his application for stay is considered on merits cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set-aside

Alpha Nipon Innovatives Ltd vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 16, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 8, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: As per CBDT's Instruction No.3/2016 dated 10.03.2016, the AO is required to give an opportunity to the assessee to show cause why the reference should not be made to the TPO and thereafter pass a speaking order while making a reference to the TPO. The failure to do so renders the reference void

No speaking order has been passed by the Assessing Officer while making a reference to the TPO, which is a requirement as per the Instruction No.3/2016 dated 10th March, 2016, issued by the CBDT. Before making a reference to the TPO, the assessee is required to be given an opportunity to show cause why the reference may not be made to the TPO and thereafter a speaking order is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer while making a reference to the TPO

Top