Home › 2015 › October
Month: October 2015

Archive for October, 2015

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — 4 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 14, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 30, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 143(2)/ 292BB: Failure to issue a s. 143(2) notice renders the reassessment order void. S. 292BB saves a case of "non service" of the notice but not a case of "non issue"

The failure of the AO, in re-assessment proceedings, to issue notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, prior to finalising the re-assessment order, cannot be condoned by referring to Section 292BB of the Act. Section 292BB applies insofar as failure of “service” of notice is concerned and not with regard to failure to “issue” notice. The non-issue of the said notice is fatal to the order of re-assessment

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 14, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 30, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Correctness of law laid down by Bombay High Court in Ace Builder 281 ITR 210 that deduction u/s 54EC is available to short-term capital gains computed u/s 50 doubted by Tribunal

By virtue of the deeming provision of section 50, cost of a long-term capital asset (LTCA), i.e., as per section 2(29A), where depreciable, forming part of a block assets on which depreciation stands claimed, the capital gain on its transfer would have to be computed in terms thereof, i.e. by treating the WDV of the relevant block of assets (or, as the case may be, the relevant asset) as its cost of acquisition. The second deeming per the provision of section 50 is qua the nature of such capital gains, i.e., as capital gains arising from the transfer of a STCA. Section 54EC is available on capital gain arising on the transfer of a LTCA, i.e., which is not a STCA by definition. The same shall, therefore, not apply to capital gains computed u/s.50

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 4 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 28, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 30, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02 to 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
The AO cannot treat a transaction as bogus only on the basis of suspicion or surmise. He has to bring material on record to support his finding that there has been collusion/connivance between the broker and the assessee for the introduction of its unaccounted money. A transaction of purchase and sale of shares, supported by Contract Notes and demat statements and Account Payee Cheques cannot be treated as bogus

Where the payments are made by Account Payee Cheques and the existence of the brokers is not disputed the assessee cannot be punished for the default of the brokers and share transactions cannot be held to be bogus. 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 recognised broker and the sale considerations were received by Account Payee Cheques, the transactions cannot be treated as bogus. Assessment cannot be made on the basis of suspicion or surmise. The AO has not brought any material on record to support his finding that there has been collusion/connivance between the broker and the appellant for the introduction of its unaccounted money

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 7, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 29, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2000-01
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 79: As the purpose of the provision is to prevent misuse of losses by transferring ownership, it should be restricted to cases of transfer of 'beneficial shareholding'. A transfer of shares of the loss-making company by the shareholder-company to its subsidiary is not hit by s. 79

The purpose of Section 79 of the Act would be that benefit of carry forward and set-off of business losses for previous years of a company should not be misused by any new owner, who may purchase the shares of the Company, only to get the benefit of set-off of business losses of the previous years, which may bear profits in the subsequent years after the new owner takes over the Company. For such purpose, it is provided under the said Section that 51% of the voting power which was beneficially held by a person or persons should continue to be held, then only such benefit could be given to the Company

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 3, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 27, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
A liaison office of a foreign co which identifies a manufacturer in India, negotiates the price, helps in choosing raw material to be used, ensures compliance with quality and gets material tested is not a ‘permanent establishment’ under Article 5 of India-USA DTAA

If the petitioner has to purchase goods for the purpose of export, an obligation is cast on the petitioner to see that the goods, which are purchased in India for export outside India is acceptable to the customer outside India. To carry on that business effectively, the aforesaid steps are to be taken by the seller i.e., the petitioner. Otherwise, the goods, which are purchased in India may not find a customer outside India and therefore, the authority was not justified in recording a finding that those acts amounts to involvement in all the activities connected with the business except the actual sale of the products outside the country. In our considered information, all those acts are necessary to be performed by the petitioner – assessee before export of goods

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 8, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 27, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10A/ 10B: After AY 2001-02 when s. 10A/ 10B became “deduction” provisions instead of “exemption” provisions, the deduction has to be computed before adjusting brought forward unabsorbed losses /depreciation

The deduction under s. 10A has to be given effect to at the stage of computing the profits and gains of business. This is anterior to the application of the provisions of s.72 which deals with the carry forward and set off of business losses. A distinction has been made by the Legislature while incorporating the provisions of Chapter VIA Section 80A(1) stipulates that in computing the total income of an assessee, there shall be allowed from his gross total income, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Chapter, the deductions specified in ss.80C to 80U. S.80B(5) defines for the purpose of Chapter VI-A “gross total income” to mean the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, before making any deduction under the Chapter

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 21, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02, 2002-03
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): If a claim of damages and interest thereon is disputed by the assessee in the court of law, deduction cannot be allowed for the interest claimed on such damages

Once a person has not voluntarily accepted a contractual obligation and further there subsists no legal obligation to pay qua such contractual claim at a particular time, it cannot be said that the person incurred any liability to pay at that point of time so as to make him eligible for deduction on that count. Notwithstanding the fact that obligation relates to an earlier year, the liability to pay arises only in the later year, when a final enforceable obligation to pay is settled against that person. In our considered opinion, there is no qualitative difference between the two situations, viz., first, in which no enforceable liability to pay is created in the first instance, and second, in which though the enforceable liability was initially created but the same stands wiped out by the stay on the operation of such enforceable liability. In both the situations, claimant remains without any legal right to recover the amount and equally the opposite party without any legal obligation to pay the same

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: February 12, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 21, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Making allegations of fraud against Dept’s Counsel and claiming that they deliberately presented weak case seeks to prejudice and interfere with due course of judicial proceedings & prima facie constitutes criminal contempt of court

The Court is of the opinion that given the nature of the conduct displayed by Sh. Gupta, i.e. preferring an application for intervention which was rejected; thereafter engaging in e-mail communications with the Standing Counsel and leveling allegations against them; addressing e-mails directly to this Court and finally, placing on record an affidavit detailing the allegations even while stating that he would withdraw some of them vis-a-vis the Standing Counsel, but would nevertheless press those allegations against the same individuals elsewhere, prima facie amounts to criminal contempt punishable in accordance with law. This Court has been informed that two of the Standing Counsels – Sh. Balbir Singh and Sh. Rohit Madan, who had previously appeared, have already recused themselves from the matter. The behaviour outlined above amounts to seeking to prejudice and interfere or tending to interfere with the due course of proceedings in the present appeals

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 10 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 20, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 54F is a beneficial provision & must be interpreted liberally. It does not require that the construction of the new residential house has to be completed, and the house be habitable, within 3 years of the transfer of the old asset. It is sufficient if the funds are invested in the new house property within the time limit

The essence of s. 54F is to ensure that assessee who received capital gains would invest same by constructing a residential house and once it is established that consideration so received on transfer of his Long Term capital asset has invested in constructing a residential house, it would satisfy the ingredients of Section 54F If the assessee is able to establish that he had invested the entire net consideration within the stipulated period, it would meet the requirement of Section 54F and as such, assessee would be entitled to get the benefit of Section 54F of the Act

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 20, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 17(3)(iii): Amount received by prospective employee for loss of employment offer is a capital receipt and is neither taxable as "salary" or as "other sources"

In other words, Section 17(3)(iii)(A) pre-supposes the existence of an employment, i.e., a relationship of employee and employer between the Assessee and the person who makes the payment of “any amount” in terms of Section 17(3)(iii) of the Act. Likewise, Section 17(3)(iii)(B) also pre-supposes the existence of the relationship of employer and employee between the person who makes the payment of the amount and the Assessee. It envisages the amount being received by the Assessee “after cessation of his employment”. Therefore, the words in Section 17(3)(iii) cannot be read disjunctively to overlook the essential facet of the provision, viz., the existence of ‘employment’ i.e. a relationship of employer and employee between the person who makes the payment of the amount and the Assessee

Read more ›