Home › 2015 › November › Page 2
Month: November 2015

Archive for November, 2015

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 1, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 26, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: The AO must give reasons before rejecting the assessee's claim. He must establish nexus between the expenditure & the exempt income. The disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income

The AO has neither recorded his satisfaction nor given reasons as to how the claim of expenditure in relation to tax free income has not been correctly made by the assessee as envisaged under section 14A(2). The AO has mechanically invoked Rule 8D. The AO has not established any nexus between the investments made and the expenditure incurred under the head interest expenditure and administrative expenses, before disregarding the disallowance suo moto made by the assessee. disallowance u/s.14A cannot exceed the amount of exempt income

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 4 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 6, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 23, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
CBDT & Govt are bound by their own interpretation of a statutory provision. Principle of "contemporanea expositio" explained. The word "or" can be interpreted as "and" if the former leads to unintelligible and absurd results

It is to be borne in mind that it is the Central Government which has framed the Rules as well as issued the notifications. If the Central Government itself is of the opinion that the rebate is to be allowed on both the forms of excise duties the government is bound thereby and the rule in-question has to interpreted in accord with this understanding of the rule maker itself. Law in this respect is well settled and, therefore, it is not necessary to burden this judgment by quoting from various decisions

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 6, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 23, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Rule 10A(d): Law on when multiple transactions can be regarded as a single composite transaction for determining arm’s length price explained. Fact that a transaction results in a profit or a loss has no bearing on whether it is at arm’s length price

The answer to the issue whether a transaction is at an arm’s length price or not is not dependent on whether the transaction results in an increase in the assessee’s profit. A view to the contrary would cause considerable confusion and lead to arbitrary, if not illogical, results. A view to the contrary would then raise a question as to the extent of profitability necessary for an assessee to establish that the transaction was at an arm’s length price. A further question that may arise is whether the arm’s length price is to be determined in proportion to the extent of profit. Thus, while profit may reflect upon the genuineness of an assessee’s claim, it is not determinative of the same

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 18, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 23, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
The object of introduction of Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was to end litigation on the issue of whether profit earned from delivery based sale of shares is capital gains or business profit. Merely because the assessee liquidates its investment within a short span of time, which had given better overall earning to the assessee, would not lead to the conclusion that the assessee had no intention to keep on the funds as investor in equity shares, but was actually intended to trade in shares

The idea behind introduction of security transaction tax is to end the litigation on the issue, whether the profit earned from delivery based sale of shares is capital gains for business profit. Thus, w.e.f. 01.10.2004; on the share transactions subjected to STT; concessional tax rate of 10% (which has been increased to 15% from AY 2009-10) are applicable in respect of STCG whereas no tax is chargeable in respect of LTCG. It is also noted that the CBDT vide its Circular no.4/2007, dated 15.06.2007 has also recognized possibility of two portfolios, i.e. one ‘Investment portfolio’ comprising of securities which are to be treated as capital assets and the other ‘Trading portfolio’ comprising of stock in trade which are to be treated as trading assets. In view of these facts, profit arose on shares in respect of delivery based transaction are liable to be taxed as capital gain and not as business income.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 18, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 20, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(7) Interest-tax Act: Right to charge overdue interest on discounted Bills of Exchange is not “interest” as it does not arise on account of delay in repayment of any loan or advance. The right arises on account of default in the payment of amounts due under a discounted bill of exchange

Section 2(7) itself makes a distinction between loans and advances made in India and discount on bills of exchange drawn or made in India. It is obvious that if discounted bills of exchange were also to be treated as loans and advances made in India there would be no need to extend the definition of “interest” to include discount on bills of exchange. Indeed, this matter is no longer res integra. The Karnataka High Court’s view is directly contrary to the view of this Court in CIT v. Sahara India Savings & Investment Corpn. Ltd., (2009) 17 SCC 43, and, therefore, cannot be countenanced. “Loans and advances” has been held to be different from “discounts” and the legislature has kept in mind the difference between the two. It is clear therefore that the right to charge for overdue interest by the assessee banks did not arise on account of any delay in repayment of any loan or advance made by the said banks. That right arose on account of default in the payment of amounts due under a discounted bill of exchange.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 4 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 21, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 20, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271B: The requirement in s. 44AB that the the tax audit report has to be obtained "before" the specified date has to be interpreted to mean "on or before" the specified date. So, even if the audit report is obtained "on" the specified date, there is no default

The term “before” specified date in section 44AB means “on or before” the specified date. Therefore, though audit report is signed on 30th September 2008 and the requirement of law is to be construed as tax audit report required to be obtained on or before 30th September 2008. Hence, the assessee has obtained tax audit report in time and there is no default u/s 271B. In Prem Chand Nathmal Kothari vs. Kishanlal Bachharaj Vyas & Ors dated 5th April 1975 reported in AIR 1976 Bombay 82 the Bombay High Court, relying on the Chambers Dictionary, held that word ‘before’ means ‘previous to the expiration of’. Therefore, before 30th September, 2008 means before the end of 30th September 2008

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 28, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 20, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Reopening solely on the basis of information received from another AO that the assessee has booked bogus bills but without independent application of mind to the information renders the reopening void

At the time of recording of the reasons the Assessing Officer apparently was not having any idea about the nature of the transactions entered into by the assessee. In the reasons recorded there is no mention about the nature of the transactions. As per provision of section 147 the reasons to believe has to be that of the Assessing Officer and further there have to be application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was also not aware of the nature of the accommodation entries. In the reasons recorded he has simply mentioned the names of the party and the amount and nowhere has stated the nature of such entry. This also shows that the Assessing Officer has made no effort to look into the return of the assessee which was available with him

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 5 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 28, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 20, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 148: Issue of furnishing the ‘Reasons’ for reopening the assessment goes to the root of the matter. In the event of failure of the AO to furnish the reasons, the reopening is bad in law

The undisputed facts are that, one – no ‘Reasons’ are available in the assessment record, and two there is nothing on record to show that certified copy of verbatim ‘Reasons’ was ever provided to the assessee, despite the request made by the assessee before AO, more than once. It clearly indicates that no ‘Reasons’ were recorded infact and therefore, these could not have been provided to the assessee. Had the ‘Reasons’ been recorded by AO, these would have definitely been provided to the assessee. The position of law is clear. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft 259 ITR 19, that it is mandatory on the part of the AO to provide the copy of the reasons to the assessee and to meet the objections filed by the assessee thereto, if any, before the AO can frame the reassessment order. It is further noted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom.), has held that in case reasons are not furnished by the AO to the assessee, before completion of reassessment proceedings, reassessment order cannot be upheld

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 7 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 18, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 18, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): Cost of Employees Stock Option (ESOP) debited to P&L A/c is allowable business expenditure

The question sought to be projected by the Revenue is whether the ITAT erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,28,19,169/- made by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) by way of disallowance of the expenses debited as cost of Employees Stock Option (‘ESOP’) in profit and loss account?

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 7, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 18, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 115JB: Even a non-taxable capital receipt credited to the P&L A/c cannot be excluded while computing the book profits. The fact that the notes to the A/cs state that the receipt is on capital account is irrelevant. Shivalik Venture distinguished

The decisions relied upon by the assessee are applicable on the facts and circumstances where if an item of income or expenditure which is required to be disclosed in the P&L A/c prepared as per provisions of Schedule VI of the Companies Act but instead of disclosing the said item in the P&L A/c, it was disclosed in the Notes to the accounts, then such item of income or expenditure will be treated as part of the P&L A/c for the purpose of computing book profits u/s 115JB. Once P&L A/c is admittedly prepared as per Schedule VI of the Companies Act, then neither the AO has any power to tinker with it nor the assessee is permitted to claim exclusion or inclusion of any item of income or expenditure as the case may be, for the purpose of computing book profits u/s 115JB except the permissible adjustment provided under the Explanation to sec. 115JB of the Act itself

Read more ›