Search Results For: K. S. Jhaveri J


CIT vs. Pooja Agarwal (Rajasthan High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 8, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks: If the transaction is supported by documents like contract notes, demat statements etc and is routed through the stock exchange and if the payments are by account-payee cheques and there is no evidence that the cash has gone back to the assessee's account, it has to be treated as a genuine transaction and cannot be assessed as unexplained credit

When the relevant documents are available the fact of transactions entered into cannot be denied simply on the ground that in his statement the appellant denied having made any transactions in shares. The payments and receipts are made through a/c payee cheques and the transactions are routed through Kolkata Stock Exchange. There is no evidence that the cash has gone back in appellants’s account. Prima facie the transaction which are supported by documents appear to be genuine transactions

Mahadev Balai vs. ITO (Rajasthan High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 7, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 4, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 54B Exemption: The fact that the investment and document is registered is made in the name of the spouse (wife) is not a ground for disallowing exemption from capital gains u/s 54B if the funds utilized for the investment belong to the assessee. Contra view in Kalya 251 CTR 174 (Raj) not followed

It is true that the contentions which have been raised by the department is that the investment is made by the assessee in his own name but the legislature while using language has not used specific language with precision and the second reason is that view has also been taken by the Delhi High Court that it can be in the name of wife. In that view of the matter, the contention raised by the assessee is required to be accepted with regard to Section 54B regarding investment

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Rajasthan High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: , , ,
DATE: July 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194H, 201(1): An obligation to deduct TDS u/s 194H arises only if the relationship is that of "principal and agent" and if a "payment" is made. As the relationship between the assessee and the distributor was that of "principal to principal" and as the "discount" did not amount to a "payment", there was no liability to deduct TDS

Taking into account the provisions of Section 182 of the Contract Act and the arrangement which has been entered into between the company and the distributor and taking into account the provisions of Section 194H, the Tribunal while considering the evidence on record, in our considered opinion, has misdirected itself in considering the case from an angle other than the angle which was required to be considered by the Tribunal under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal has travelled beyond the provisions of Section 194H where the condition precedent is that the payment is to be made by the assessee and thereafter he is to make payment. In spite of our specific query to the counsel for the department, it was not pointed out that any amount was paid by the assessee company. It was only the arrangement by which the amount which was to be received was reduced and no amount was paid as commission

Rajasthan Tax Consultants Association vs. UOI (Rajasthan High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 20, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 22, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
GST: As the system is not working and is required to be corrected, taxpayers who are unable to log-in should inform the concerned officials. No coercive action (penal interest, late fees and prosecution) shall be levied against the clients of the Petitioners' members referred in the petition and those who inform by email. The composition Scheme is extended upto 30.9.2017 and desirous assessee can apply

Looking to the averments which are made in the petition and the reply which has been filed, it appears that the system is not working upto the level and the same is required to be corrected & updated to meet requirements. In the meantime, no coercive action (penal interest, late fees and prosecution) against any of the client of the petitioners members who are referred in the petition and are informing by email, will be protected

CIT vs. M/s Carpet Mahal (Rajasthan High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 10, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 25, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus purchases: In view of the Supreme Court’s order in Vijay Proteins Ltd vs. CIT whereby the verdicts of the Gujarat High Court in Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. CIT 316 ITR 274 (Guj) and N.K. Industries Ltd vs. Dy. CIT were confirmed, the AO has to accept the law and verify whether the transaction is genuine or not on the basis of the aforesaid three judgments

Considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Leave to Appeal decided on 06.04.2015 whereby the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP and confirmed the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the Gujarat High Court and other decisions of the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) and N.K. Industries Ltd. Vs. Dy. C.I.T., Tax Appeal No.240/2003 decided on 20.06.2016, the parties are bound by the principle of law pronounced in the aforesaid three judgments

Chetnaben J Shah vs. ITO (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 14, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 5, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1994-95
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 132(4): Mere voluntary disclosure of undisclosed income by assessee cannot form basis of addition if no evidence is detected in search. Fact that retraction of statement is late is irrelevant. CBDT Circular No. F.No.286/2/2003-IT (In) dated 10.03.2003 bars addition on the basis of confession

It is a normal presumption that statement under section 132(4) is given voluntarily unless it is proved otherwise. There is no evidence on record to show that this statement was given in any coercion. But this statement was subject to variation on either side after verification i.e. assessee could reduce the disclosure made or the Assessing Officer could enhance the same if the facts and evidence so warranted. May be, even if this fact is not mentioned in the statement itself, the point will still remain since it is no body’s case to get say any extra tax then is due. The reality remains that there is no evidence what-so-ever with the department even in consequence of a serious action like search and seizure followed by detailed security which could support the earning of speculation income of Rs.10,50,000/- in this year. In other words, there is no evidence to support the very existence of this income except the so called statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. It defies logic that an assessee will or should admit any income which he had not earned and which the department had not found out

CIT vs. Ramanbhai B Patel (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 20, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 3, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1991-92
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 132(4): Admission of undisclosed income by assessee is not conclusive if no evidence is found to support the admission. A retraction, though belated, is valid. Failure to provide cross-examination to assessee of persons whose statements are relied up is fatal to the addition. CBDT Directive F.No.286/98/2013 IT (INV.II] dated 18/12/2014 prohibits additions on the basis of confession

Admission made by the assessee is not a conclusive proof and such admission can be used as an evidence unless it is not retracted. The assessee in this case has already retracted the statement which in our opinion is a valid retraction. Although there had been search in the case of Gokul Corporation and its partner Shri Suresh A Patel on which the Revenue has relied for making the additions in the case of the assessee but the Revenue could not bring any evidence or material except the statement of the assessee which was recorded on 8.1.96 and also the statements of Shri Subhash Pandey and Shri Kashyap Thakore and these statements were although recorded at the back of the assessee. When the assessee has asked for their cross-examination, the cross examination was not given to the assessee, although the statement of the assessee was recored in consequence of the said statement

Kirit Dayabhai Patel vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 3, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 25, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2002-03
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Immunity against penalty under Expl 5 is available even in return is not filed provided a statement is made during the search, explaining the manner of deriving the income and due tax & interest thereon is paid

In order to get the benefit of immunity under clause(2) of explanation5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, it is not necessary to file the return before the due date provided that the assessee had made a statement, during the search and explained the manner in which the surrendered amount was derived, and paid tax as well as interest on the surrendered amount

DCIT vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 17, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 10, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 1996-97
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IA/ 80HHC: Despite the introduction of 'block of assets' depreciation cannot be thrust on the assessee while computing quantum of eligible deduction

Depreciation is optional to the assessee and once he chooses not to claim it, the Assessing Officer cannot allow it while computing the income. Further, once depreciation is optional, it will be optional for block of assets also. It is not necessary that the depreciation is allowable or not allowable as a whole. The assessee can claim it partly also in respect of certain block of assets and not claim in respect of other block of assets. Accordingly, for purposes of sections 80HHC and 80-IA, depreciation not claimed for by the assessee cannot be allowed as a deduction despite the introduction of the concept of block of assets

Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Gujarat High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 18, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 1, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 1999-00
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 263: Failure to conduct inquiry & hear assessee before issue of notice renders proceedings invalid. Order of CIT(A) results in merger of AO's order and bars s. 263 revision

It is clear that the assessee and the revenue both had preferred the appeals raising all the grounds, over and above the ground of deduction under Section 80HHC and 80IA of the Act, the order of the AO stood merged

Top