Search Results For: H. S. Sidhu (JM)


COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 3, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 11, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11UA: The legislative intent is to apply s. 56(2)(viib) where unaccounted money received in garb of share premium. The AO has not made out a case that stated money is not clean money. Also, the assessee has given approved valuer (CA) report justifying share premium raised based on valid and prescribed method being DCF and said report is in accordance with ICAI norms. AO has not countered the said report by substitute valuation. Also, if the shares are sold in next FY at much higher amount, the premium cannot be said to be excessive (Lalithaa Jewellery 178 ITD 503 (Chennai) followed)

Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and by applying the principles from the aforesaid decision and legislative intent behind insertion of section 56(2)(viib), I hold that addition made by AO on account of alleged excess share premium is unjustified when those very shares are sold in next financial year at much higher amount after proper due diligence, that to a non resident buyer and further there is no case of unaccounted money being brought in garb of stated share premium, hence, addition made u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act is hereby deleted

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 2, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 7, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147 Reopening of Bogus share capital/ premium: If the PCIT, while granting approval for issue of notice u/s. 148, has only mentioned “YES”, it establishes that the approving authority has given approval to the reopening of assessment in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. On this count the reassessment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and needs to be quashed (All imp judgements referred)

The Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2, New Delhi while granting approval for issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act in Column no. 12 has only mentioned that “YES”, which establish that the approving authority has given approval to the reopening of assessment in a mechanical manner without due application of mind and therefore, on this account the reassessment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and needs to be 6 quashed.

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.

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 10, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194-IA TDS: The exemption of Rs. 50 lakh in s. 194-IA(2) is applicable w.r.t. the amount related to each transferee and not with reference to the amount as per sale deed. Each transferee is a separate income tax entity and the law has to be applied with reference to each transferee as an individual transferee / person

Each transferee is a separate income tax entity therefore, the law has to be applied with reference to each transferee as an individual transferee / person. It is also noted that Section 194-IA was introduced by Finance Act, 2013 effective from 1.6.2013. It is also noted from the Memorandum explaining the provisions brought out alongwith the Finance Bill wherein it was stated that “in order to reduce the compliance burden on the small tax payers, it is further proposed that no deduction of tax under this provision shall be made where the total amount of consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than fifty lakhs rupees.”

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 26, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 28, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Capital gains: Reliance by the AO on statements of third parties without giving the assessee an opportunity of cross-examination is a gross failure of the principles of natural justice and renders the assessment order a nullity

Not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 5, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 9, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(38)/68 Bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks: It cannot be inferred that the assessee has manipulated the share price merely because it moved up sharply. The AO has to produce material/evidence to show that the assessee/ brokers did price rigging/manipulation of shares. The AO must also show that the relevant evidence produced by the assessee in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statement, bank account etc to prove the genuineness of the transactions are false or fictitious or bogus (All judgements considered)

We note that in the absence of material/evidence the allegations that the assessee/brokers got involved in price rigging/manipulation of shares must therefore also fail. At the cost of repetition, we note that the assessee had furnished all relevant evidence in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statement and bank account to prove the genuineness of the transactions relevant to the purchase and sale of shares resulting in long term capital gain. These evidences were neither found by the AO nor by the ld. CIT(A) to be false or fictitious or bogus. The facts of the case and the evidence in support of the evidence clearly support the claim of the assessee that the transactions of the assessee were genuine and the authorities below was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee that income from LTCG is exempted u/s 10(38)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 27, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 3, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9/ 195(1) TDS: Law on whether commision paid to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India accrues in India and whether the assessee is liable to deduct TDS thereon explained (All judgements referred)

Section 195 of the Act has to be read alongwith the charging Section 4,5 and 9 of the Act. One should not read Section 195 of the Act to mean that the moment there is a remittance, the obligation to deduct tax automatically arises. Section 195 of the Act clearly provides that unless the income is chargeable to lax in India, there is no obligation to withhold tax. In order to determine whether the income could be deemed to accrue or arise in India, section 9 of the Act is the basis

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 25, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 27, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: If the AO has remained silent with folded hands and has not made any independent inquiry from the concerned AO of share holder company and has not controverted the evidence produced by the assessee, that itself is sufficient to knock off the addition made. The fact that there is no personal appearance from director of said cash creditor (share holder) does not mean that an adverse inference u/s 68 can be drawn by the AO without the AO discharging the secondary burden lying upon him (All imp judgements referred)

All the relevant and necessary documents required to establish the subject transaction of share capital received are brought on records before AO and Ld CIT(A) and have totally remained uncontroverted. Specially the fact of positive response made by share holder in response to enquiry made u/s 131 and confirmation of subject investment therein by share holder to AO clinches the issue in favor of assessee. Moreover the share holder company having handsome net worth and assessed u/s 153C/153A for subject period also supports assessee’s case. Further AO has remained sited with folded hands and has not made any independent enquiry from concerned AO of share holder company which itself is sufficient to knock off the addition made

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 6, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 7, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Applicability of s. 80 to s. 153A returns: A return filed u/s 153A is deemed to be a return filed u/s 139(1). Accordingly, the restrictive provisions of s. 80 do not apply. The return u/s 153A, once accepted and assessed, replaces the original return filed u/s 139. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for carry forward business loss

Therefore, if the assessee has filed a loss return u/s. 139(3) within the period provided under the Act and if the assessee has filed a revised loss return under Sub- section (5) thereof again within the prescribed time limit, the A.O is bound to take cognizance of the revised return because the original return is replaced by the revised return, held the Tribunal. In the present case before us, undisputedly, the assessment u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act has been framed on the basis of return filed in response to notice issue u/s. 153A of the Act. Hence, now it is not open to raise contention by the revenue that return was filed beyond the prescribed time period mentioned in the notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act. The return of income filed in response to the notice u/s. 153A on the basis of which assessment in question has been framed thus has replaced the original return for determining the net income in the assessment u/s. 153A of the Act. Thus, in a sense, return filed in response to the notice issued u/s. 153A was a revised return and the assessment was re- assessment

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 24, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 26, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 151: If the AO reopens on the basis of information received from another AO without further inquiry, it means he has proceeded "mechanically" and "without application of mind". If the CIT does not give reasons while according sanction, it implies that he has also not applied his mind. Both render the reopening void (All imp judgements referred)

Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the CIT(a), who is the competent authority to authorize the reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression ‘approved’ says nothing. It is not as if the CIT(A) has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest possible manner. In the present case, the exercise appears to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful, which is the rationale for the safeguard of an approval by a higher ranking officer