Search Results For: Saktijit Dey (JM)


Mateen Pyarali Dholkia vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 30, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 7, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 45/ 48: Portfolio Management Scheme (PMS) fees paid by the assessee to the PMS Manager neither falls under the category of transfer fees nor cost of acquisition/improvement. Consequently it is not deductible while computing capital gains from sale of the shares (All judgements referred)

In the instant case, the deduction on account of fees paid for PMS had been claimed by the assessee as deduction in computing capital gains arising from sale of shares and securities. He however had failed to explain as to how the said fees could be considered as cost of acquisition of the shares and securities or the cost of any improvement thereto. He had also failed to explain as to how the said fees could be treated as expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with sale of shares and securities. On the other hand, the basis on which the said fees was paid by the assessee showed that it had no direct nexus with the purchase and sale of shares and as rightly contended by the revenue, the said fees was payable by the assessee going by the basis thereof even without there being any purchase or sale of shares in a particular period

Mahesh H. Hinduja vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 20, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 23, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 139(5): There is no bar / restriction that an assessee cannot file a revised return of income after issuance of notice u/s 143(2). A revised return of income can be filed even in course of the assessment proceedings provided the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) is available. The Departmental Authorities are not expected to deny assessee’s legitimate claim by raising technical objection

There is no bar / restriction in the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act that the assessee cannot file a revised return of income after issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. It is trite law, the assessee can file a revised return of income even in course of the assessment proceedings, provided, the time limit prescribed under section 139(5) of the Act is available. That being the case, the revised return of income filed by the assessee under section 139(5) of the Act cannot be held as invalid

Soman Sun Citi vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 23, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 69C Bogus Purchases (100% disallowance confirmed): The right of cross-examination is not absolute. No prejudice is caused to the assessee by non granting of cross examination if the assessee has not discharged the primary onus. The fact that purchase bills are produced and payment is made through banking channels is not sufficient if the other evidence is lacking

No prejudice is caused to the assessee by non granting of opportunity of cross examination by the authorities below as right of cross examination is not absolute as in the instant case even primary onus that fell on the assessee did not stood discharged. Had assessee discharged its primary onus, but still the authorities proceed to prejudice assessee based solely on the incriminating statements/affidavits of third parties recorded at the back of the assessee, the right of the assessee to cross examine these third parties will become absolute. It is not a case that the authorities below have merely/solely relied on the statement/affidavit of third parties namely hawala dealers recorded at the back of the assessee to cause prejudice to the assessee rather primary onus that lay on the assessee was not discharged by the assessee

Indrani Sunil Pillai vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: January 19, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 23, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) penalty: If the AO has not recorded any satisfaction in absolute terms whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, the levy of penalty is invalid. The judgement of the Bombay High Court in Maharaj Garage cannot be read out of context or in a manner to mean that there is no need for mentioning the specific limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act for which the penalty was intended to be imposed, as such issue never came up for consideration before the High Court

As far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Maharaj Garage dated 22nd August 2017 in ITA no. 21 of 2008 relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative, on a careful reading of the said judgment, we are of the view that it will have no application to the facts of the case. As could be seen, the basic issue arising out of the reference application which fell for consideration of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court was, while granting previous approval by Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income–tax as per provisions of section 271(1)(c)(iii) of the Act whether the assessee was required to be given an opportunity of being heard. While considering this issue, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court observed that provisions of section 271(1)(c)(iii) does not attract rule of presumption of mens rea as the penalty imposable under the said provision is for the breach of civil obligation. The observations of the Hon’ble Court against issuance of show cause notice appears to be in the context of quantum of penalty proposed to be imposed and not with reference to the doing away with the issuance of show cause notice as contemplated under section 274 of the Act. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon’ble Court cannot be read out of context or in a manner to mean that there is no need for mentioning the specific limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act for which the penalty was intended to be imposed, as such issue never came up for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court. That being the case, the aforesaid decision cannot be applied for rebutting the proposition that in the absence of recording of satisfaction regarding the exact nature of offence, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be imposed

Mustansir I Tehsildar vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: December 18, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 22, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 54: Acquisition of new flat in an apartment under construction should be considered as a case of “Construction” and not “Purchase”. The date of commencement of construction is not relevant for purpose of s. 54. The fact that the construction may have commenced prior to the date of transfer of the old asset is irrelevant. If the construction is completed within 3 years from the date of transfer, the exemption is available

For the purpose of sec. 54 of the Act, we have to see whether the assessee has completed the construction within three years from the date of transfer of old asset. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessee took possession of the new flat within three years from the date of sale of old residential flat. Accordingly, we are of the view that the assessee has complied with the time limit prescribed u/s 54 of the Act. Since the amount invested in the new flat prior to the due date for furnishing return of income was more than the amount of capital gain, the requirements of depositing any money under capital gains account scheme does not arise in the instant case. Further, the Hon’ble High Court has held in the case of ITO Vs. K.C.Gopalan (2000)(162 CTR 0566) that there is no requirement that the sale proceeds realised on sale of old residential house alone should be utilised

Late Shri Gordhandas S. Garodia vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: November 1, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 28, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 45/ 48: The scheme of the Act is to assess real income and not hypothetical income. The word "accrue" in "full value of consideration received or accruing" in s. 45 means that the assessee has a legally enforceable right to receive the sum. An amount which is payable only on fulfillment of conditions does not create an enforceable right and has to be excluded while computing capital gains

The expression “full value of consideration received or accruing” would mean the amount actually received by the assessee or consideration which has accrued to the assessee. The expression “accrue” means a right acquired by the assessee to receive income. Unless, a debt due by somebody has been created in favour of assessee, it cannot be said that he has acquired a right to receive the income or that income has accrued to him. An amount can accrue to assessee if he acquires a legally enforceable right to receive it from the debtor. The entire purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is to assess the real income of the assessee. Therefore, the Departmental Authorities cannot assess any hypothetical or notional income to tax

ACIT vs. Katrina (Kaif) Rosemary Turcotte (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68: In the absence of any direct evidence demonstrating that the assessee received cash payment, no addition can be made merely on presumption and surmises and on estimate basis. For making the addition on account of cash component, it is the duty of the AO to bring on record corroborative evidence to establish the fact that the entries made in the seized document were correct

The Assessing Officer has not brought on record any clinching evidence on the basis of any enquiry made by him to demonstrate that the assessee has actually received any cash as per the evaluation sheet from Matrix. Therefore, in the absence of any direct evidence demonstrating that the assessee had received cash payment from Matrix, as shown in the evaluation sheet, no addition can be made merely on presumption and surmises and on estimate basis. For making the addition on account of cash component, it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to bring on record corroborative evidence to establish the fact that the entries made in the evaluation sheet were correct

ITO vs. Arvind Kumar Jain HUF (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 18, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus capital gains from penny stocks: If the DMAT account and contract note show details of the share transactions and the AO has not proved the transactions to be bogus, the capital gains earned on the said transactions cannot be treated as unaccounted income u/s 68. The fact that the broker was tainted and violated SEBI regulations would not make assessee’s transactions bogus

The AO has treated the share transaction as bogus on the plea that SEBI has initiated investigation in respect of Ramkrishna Fincap Pvt. Ltd. The AO further stated that investigation revealed that transaction through M/s Periwal and Co. on the floor of stock exchange was more than 83%. We found that as far as initiation of investigation of broker is concerned, the assessee is no way concerned with the activity of the broker. Detailed finding has been recorded by CIT(A) to the effect that assessee has made investment in shares which was purchased on the floor of stock exchange and not from M/s Basant Periwal and Co. Against purchases payment has been made by account payee cheque, delivery of shares were taken, contract of sale was also complete as per the Contract Act, therefore, the assessee is not concerned with any way of the broker. Nowhere the AO has alleged that the transaction by the assessee with these particular broker or share was bogus, merely because the investigation was done by SEBI against broker or his activity, assessee cannot be said to have entered into ingenuine transaction, insofar as assessee is not concerned with the activity of the broker and have no control over the same

DCIT vs. Hita Land Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 25, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 1, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2): The amendment by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f. 01.06.2016 to specify the time limit of 6 months to file a rectification application applies even to applications filed with respect to appeal orders passed prior to the date of the amendment. The Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing a Miscellaneous Application

It is to be noted that the earlier period of ‘four years’ has been substituted with ‘six months’ by the Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 01/06/2016. However, we find that no distinction has been made in this section between orders passed before 01/06/2016 and orders passed after 01/06/2016. Moreover, the Tribunal order was dated 22/03/2013 and therefore, the Revenue had ample time to go through the same and pin point the mistakes in the order but it has failed to do so. Therefore, we find no force in these miscellaneous petitions primarily because of the reason that the Statute does not authorize us to entertain any petition which has been filed u/s 254(2) at any time beyond a period of six months from the date of the order

Top