Search Results For: M. Balganesh (AM)


COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 16, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 9, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2015-16
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(viia) cannot apply to a foreign company as Rule 11U(b)(ii) (prior to 01.04.2019) which defines "balance sheet‟ was not applicable to a foreign company. If the computation provisions cannot apply, the charging section cannot apply. The amendment to Rule 11U with effect from 1.4.19 is prospective in nature (B. C. Srinivasa Shetty 128 ITR 294 (SC), Palai Central Bank Ltd (1985) 1 SCC 45 followed)

We hold that since the shares of a foreign company were acquired by the assessee company in the instant case, the ld AO ought to have relied on the balance sheet as audited by the auditor appointed under the Indian Companies Act. In the instant case, the ld AO had relied on the balance sheet of KNP Industries Pte Ltd, Singapore, which is prepared in accordance with Singapore Companies Act, which fact is not in dispute before us. Admittedly, the case of the assessee falls squarely on clause (ii) of the definition of “Balance Sheet‟ as defined in Rule 11U of the Rules supra. Hence it is mandatory to draw a balance sheet as on the valuation date i.e. 10.2.2015 /11.2.2015 (being the date of purchase of shares by the assessee company) and that the said balance sheet should have been audited by an auditor appointed under section 224 of the Companies Act, 1956. Hence it could be safely concluded that the ld AO had applied the valuation method on a different date which is not in accordance with law and that since the computation mechanism provided in Rule 11UA of the Rules is not applicable to the facts of the instant case, the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the Act also could not be invoked

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 16, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 26, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04, 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(7A)/ 120(4): Though, by virtue of the retrospective amendment to s. 2(7A), the Addl CIT is an "Assessing Officer", he can act as such only if there is a notification issued by the CBDT u/s 120(4)(b) or if there is an order u/s 127 transferring jurisdiction from the DCIT to the Addl CIT. In the absence of either, the assessment order is without jurisdiction and has to be quashed as null and void. The fact that the assessee co-operated is irrelevant because there is no estoppel. The argument of the Dept that as the order is passed by a higher officer, there is no prejudice to the assessee is not acceptable. The matter also cannot be remanded back (All imp judgements referred)

In view of the legal discussion made above and facts of the case, it is clear that impugned assessment order has been passed without authority of law in as much as Revenue has not been able to demonstrate that the Additional Commissioner of Income tax who had passed the assessment order had valid authority to perform and exercise the powers and functions of an Assessing Officer of the assessee and to pass the impugned assessment order. Under these circumstances, we have no other option but to hold the same as nullity and, therefore, the impugned assessment order is quashed having been passed with out authority of law

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 22, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 5, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11UA: The assessee has the option to determine the fair market value of shares either under the DCF method or the NAV method. The assessee's choice is binding on the AO. While the AO can scrutinize the working, he cannot discard the assessee's method and substitute another method (Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd vs. PCIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 73 (Bom) referred)

While valuing the share premium and to determine the fair market value of shares in terms of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, the assessee has option for adoption of valuation method and the basis of valuation has to be DCF method. The Hon’ble Bombay High court in Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd vs. PCIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 73 (Bombay) has held that in view of the Income Tax Rules, the method of valuation namely NAV method or DCF Method to determine the fair market value of share in terms of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act has to be done or adopted at the assessee’s option. AO was undoubtedly entitled to scrutinize the valuation report and can tinker or determine a fresh valuation after confronting the assessee. However, the basis of valuation had to be DCF method and it is not open to the AO to change the method of valuation which the assessee has duly opted

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 1, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 31, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(38): The fact that "long-term capital gains" on listed shares are exempt from tax does not mean that "long-term capital loss" on such shares is not available for set-off against taxable income. While the gains are exempt, there is no bar against claiming set-off of the loss (J.H. Gotla 156 ITR 323 (SC) distinguished, CBDT Circular No.7/2013 dated 16.07.2013 referred, Raptakos Bret 69 SOT 383 (Mum) followed)

If one carefully analyzes various sub-sections of Section 10 then it is evident that each sub-section enlists specific specie of receipt to which exemption from tax is granted if certain conditions are fulfilled. We therefore find that Section 10 enlists various species of receipts which are otherwise revenue in nature but they are granted exemption from income-tax by the Legislature. The Legislature can grant exemption only when there is a positive income and not where there is a ‘loss’ or negative income on which admittedly there cannot be any charge of income-tax.

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 10, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 8, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2016-17
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(vi) Royalty: Payment for 'bandwith services' is not assessable as 'royalty' if the assessee only has access to services and not to any equipment. The assessee also did not have any access to any process which helped in providing of such bandwith services. All infrastructure & process required for provision of bandwith services was always used and under the control of the service provider and was never given either to the assessee or to any other person availing the said services

The assessee pursuant to the terms of the “agreement‟ had only received standard facilities i.e bandwith services from RJIPL. In fact, as observed by the CIT(A), the assessee only had an access to services and did not have any access to any equipment deployed by RJIPL for providing the bandwith services. Apart there from, the assessee also did not have any access to any process which helped in providing of such bandwith services by RJIPL. As a matter of fact, all infrastructure and process required for provision of bandwith services was always used and under the control of RJIPL, and the same was never given either to the assessee or to any other person availing the said services

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 1, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 11, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09 to 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Natural Justice: The assessee cannot be kept in the dark. Adverse statements or materials cannot be kept away from his eyes. If the AO intends to use it to draw adverse inference/finding, the assessee should be provided the adverse material/statements in order to rebut/cross examine the provider/maker of the adverse material. Failure to do so is a serious flaw which renders the assessment a nullity (All imp judgements referred)

It has to be kept in mind that the AO is empowered to collect materials behind the back of the assessee, however if he intends to use it adversely against the assessee, then it is incumbent upon him to furnish a copy of the materials/statements to the assessee and the assessee should be provided an opportunity to rebut/cross examine the provider/maker of the adverse material. The assessee cannot be kept in the dark and the adverse statements or materials cannot be kept away from his eyes, and if the AO was intending to use it against the assessee to draw adverse inference/finding, then the assessee should be provided the adverse material/statements in order to rebut/cross examine the provider/maker of the adverse material, which is a natural right of the assessee and we find that it has not been done in this case, resulting in violation of natural justice. We are therefore of the considered view that the general statements recorded from the alleged entry operators by themselves with the legal infirmities pointed out, supra, did not constitute incriminating material for the purposes of Section 153A of the Act

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

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 27, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07, 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(38): If the AO has accepted the claim for exemption for long-term capital gains and conceded that the assessee is an "investor", he cannot change his stand and treat the assessee as a "trader" in respect of the claim of short-term capital gains alone

The AO having accepted the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act for long term capital gains of the assessee had conceded the claim of assessee to be an investor and the AO cannot take a different stand by treating the assessee as a trader in respect of short term capital gains alone

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 30, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 143(2)/ 143(3): Proper service of the notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory and its failure renders the assessment order void. The fact that an unauthorized person appeared on behalf of the assessee before the AO does not mean that the notice was properly served

The contention of the AR was that Shri M.Sankar is not a concerned person representing the assessee to receive such notice and the notice was served on improper person. We also find from the assessment order that Shri Sanjib Sarkar being one of the partners appeared on 10-12- 2010 before the AO for first time and the order sheet at page no-1 of paper book supports the same. We further find that the AO recorded the issuance of notice u/s. 142(1) on 19-7-2010 for fixing the hearing on 02-08-2010 and thereafter, according to assessment order, probably, after 26-08-2010 another notice for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b)of the Act was issued. Therefore, it goes to show that a person claiming to be representing the assessee as partner appeared before the AO for the first time on 10-12-2010 in response to notice issued u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act and it concluded that the service of notice u/sec 143(2) on 30-09-09 and issuance of notice thereafter u/sec 142(1) of the Act was not in the knowledge of the assessee and as rightly contended by the AR notice u/sec 143(2) of the Act was not properly served on the assessee

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 2, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 23, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Penny Stocks: The fact that the stock is thinly traded and there is unusually high gain is not sufficient to treat the long-term capital gains as bogus when all the paper work is in order. The revenue has to bring material on record to support its finding that there has been collusion / connivance between the broker and the assessee for the introduction of its unaccounted money

When purchase and sale of shares were supported by proper contract notes, deliveries of shares were received through demat accounts maintained with various agencies, the shares were purchased and sold through recognized broker and the sale considerations were received by account payee cheques, the transactions cannot be treated as bogus and the income so disclosed was assessable as LTCG. We find that in the instant case, the addition has been made only on the basis of the suspicion that the difference in purchase and sale price of these shares is unusually high. The revenue had not brought any material on record to support its finding that there has been collusion / connivance between the broker and the assessee for the introduction of its unaccounted money