Home › 2016 › March
Month: March 2016

Archive for March, 2016

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by CA. Pinky Kapoor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 3, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 31, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): No penalty leviable on bonafide human error committed while filing return of income

When the assessee was confronted with the depreciation being claimed on the property, the income from which had been returned under the head income from house property, it immediately realized its mistake of computation of total income and agreed for the addition to its total income. The mistake was inadvertent, is evident from the fact that assessee had furnished return of income of Rs. 3,27,79,273/- and, therefore, there was no reason to make a false claim of a petty sum of Rs. 7,87,734/-

Read more ›

Posted on by bhavikshah
COURT: ,
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 15, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 31, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
AO framed the assessment in a hypothetical way putting the assessee to enormous harassment and inconvenience . Similarly, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without looking into the merits and facts of the cases which are very clear and apparent from the records produced.

We find that the third party transactions were added in the hands of the assessee without without any basis or material and thus, the AO framed the assessment in a hypothetical way putting the assessee to enormous harassment and inconvenience. Similarly, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition without looking into the merits and facts of the cases which are very clear and apparent from the records produced

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 29, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 31, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(vii)/ 40(a)(ia)/ 194J: “Technical services” & “Managerial and Consultancy service” denotes services that cater to special & exclusive needs of the consumer/user. A "facility", even if termed as a service, which is available to all users, does not come within the ambit of “technical services” in Explanation 2 of s. 9(1)(vii)

“Technical services” like “Managerial and Consultancy service” would denote seeking of services to cater to the special needs of the consumer/user as may be felt necessary and the making of the same available by the service provider. It is the above feature that would distinguish/identify a service provided from a facility offered. While the former is special and exclusive to the seeker of the service, the latter, even if termed as a service, is available to all and would therefore stand out in distinction to the former. The service provided by the Stock Exchange for which transaction charges are paid fails to satisfy the aforesaid test of specialized, exclusive and individual requirement of the user or consumer who may approach the service provider for such assistance/service. It is only service of the above kind that, according to us, should come within the ambit of the expression “technical services” appearing in Explanation 2 of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act. In the absence of the above distinguishing feature, service, though rendered, would be mere in the nature of a facility offered or available which would not be covered by the aforesaid provision of the Act

Read more ›

Posted on by Brettlee
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 24, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 30, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Section 68- Cash Credit

In this case, the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notices under s. 131 at the instance of the assessee, did not pursue the matter further. The Revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they were creditworthy or were such who could advance the alleged loans. There was no effort made to pursue the so-called alleged creditors. In those circumstances, the assessee could not do anything further

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 18, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 30, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1997-98
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): Distinction between "application software" and "system software" explained. Expenditure on "application software" is revenue as it allows efficient carrying on of business and requires to be constantly updated due to rapid advancements in technology and increasing complexity of the features

The concept of enduring benefit must respond to the changing economic realities of the business. The expenses incurred by installation of software packages in the present computer world, which revolves on the modern communication technology, enables the assessee to carry on its business operations effectively, efficiently, smoothly and profitably. However, such software itself does not work on a standalone basis. It has to be fitted to a computer system to work. Such software enhances the efficiency of the operation. It is an aid in the manufacturing process rather than the tool itself. Therefore, the payment for such application software, though there is an enduring benefit, does not result in acquisition of any capital asset and it merely enhances the productivity or efficiency and hence, has to be treated as revenue expenditure

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 9, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 30, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 115JA/115JB: Capital receipts (such as subsidy & carbon credits), which have no income element, have to be excluded from book profits even if credited to the P&L A/c

The genesis of Sec 115J, thereafter section 115JA and now section 115JB was to ensure that the assessee, while making profit from operations, should not enjoy tax free status due to various deductions available under the Income Tax Act. There was never any intention of the legislature to tax what is not income at all. In a recent decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd -vs- CIT (2011) 330 ITR 363 (SC) has held that the object of MAT provisions is to bring out the real profit of the companies. The thrust is to find out the real working results of the company. Inclusion of receipt in the computation of MAT would defeat two fundamental principles, it would levy tax on receipt which is not in the nature of income at all and secondly it would not result in arriving at real working results of the company. The real working result can be arrived at only after excluding this receipt which has been credited to P&L a/c and not otherwise

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 9, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 30, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Purchases: Theory that transaction "defies human probabilities" cannot be applied to purchases in isolation but has to be applied to the entire transaction in the light of documentary evidence produced by the assessee

The tax authorities have not accepted the claim of purchases of diamonds from TTPL on the reasoning that the said transaction defies the human probabilities. The tax authorities have, accordingly, rejected the various evidences furnished by the assessee in support of claim of purchases. We also notice that the tax authorities have arrived at such a conclusion only by considering the purchase transaction and did not prefer to examine the claim of export of same goods in the succeeding year and re-import of the same goods thereafter. In our view, the surrounding circumstances and human probabilities attached to a transaction should be examined by considering the transactions as a whole. Examination of part of transactions alone in the context of human probabilities/surrounding circumstances, some times, would give misleading results

Read more ›

Posted on by ksalegal
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 9, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 29, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Mutuality - TDR Premium

The learned CIT(A) relied on ITAT order for A.Y. 2006-07 (ITA No. 499/M/2011) & A.Y. 2007-08 (ITA No. 500/M/2011) and held that TDR Premium received by Society from its members was not covered by principle of Mutuality. The Tribunal for A.Y. 2008-09 reversed the order of Learned CIT(A) and held that TDR premium will be covered by the principle of mutuality. Hence, ITAT order for A.Y. 2006-07 (ITA No. 499/M/2011) and A.Y. 2007-08 (ITA No. 500/M/2011) in case of Hatkesh Co-op. Hsg. Society is no longer good law.

Read more ›

Posted on by ananyakapoor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: March 3, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Section 147, reopening, reopening on factually erroneous premise, not permissible, change of opinion

Since the action of the Revenue was based on a factually erroneous premise, the Court is of the view that the reopening of the assessments for the said AYs is not sustainable in law. The Court is also satisfied that the requirement of the law, as explained by the Court in Commissioner of Income Tax. v. Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), and reiterated in the later decisions, has not been fulfilled in the present case

Read more ›

Posted on by cahiren.trivedi@gmail.com
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 28, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: A.Y 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
An order of revision passed on a non-existing entity, even though the power of attorney and the adjournment and the reply to show cause notice was signed by the erstwhile company, is invalid. The Tribunal held that the case of estoppel relied on by the department cannot be applied to instant case as assessee did not behave in a notorious way to mislead the department. Taking cognizance of the intimation filed by the assessee to the jurisdictional AO that the company is not is existence, during the assessment proceedings, of the intervening assessment years, and there being no provision in law to intimate the CIT regarding the facts of merger, the ITAT held the order to be invalid.

In the Income Tax Act, there is no provision to communicate this fact to the Commissioner. The assessee has already informed the AO. We have extracted the copy of the letter written by the assessee. We have also made reference of the assessment order vide which the AO has taken cognizance of this fact while he issued notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. In the order of the ITAT, Kolkata Bench itself has observed that legally when a company amalgamates with another, it loses its identity and no proceedings can be taken in its earlier name. The Bench had taken a different view on account of notorious facts available in that case. No such circumstances are before us. Apart from above, we are of the view that even if the assessee gave consent for taking up the proceedings under section 263 against it, that would not infuse jurisdiction in the ld.Commissioner. In other words, this adjournment application, reply to show cause notice would not infuse jurisdiction to ld.Commissioner. Jurisdiction should be by virtue of operation of the Act and not by the consent of an assessee. A perusal of section 263 would indicate that before taking any action under section 263, the ld.Commissioner has to pursue record and record would include the communication made by the assessee to the AO on 23.7.2013 intimating about the fact of amalgamation

Read more ›