Home › 2016 › August › Page 3
Month: August 2016

Archive for August, 2016

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 27, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 4, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Writ Petition: A Writ Petition filed little after four months of receipt of impugned order suffers from “delay”. If the Writ Petition does not explain the reasons for the “delay”, it is liable to be dismissed

We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal was passed on 4th December, 2015, received by the petitioner on 28th December, 2015. This petition has been filed on 29th April, 2016. The petition states that according to the petitioner, there is no delay in filing the petition. However, if this Court is of the view that there is a delay and delay may be condoned. However, no reasons with particulars are specified in the petition. In view of the fact that the petition itself does not explain the reason for the delay, the petition is liable to be dismissed

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: July 20, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 4, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: S. 148 reopening notice issued to a private trust which received contributions of Rs. 6.58 crore on the ground that it has not obtained a PAN or filed a return of income is not valid. The AO cannot assume all receipts are income and issue the reopening notice

Mere non filing of return of income does not give jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer to re-open the assessment unless the person concerned has total income which is assessable under the Act exceeding maximum amount which is not chargeable to Income Tax. This is provided in Explanation 2 to Section 147 of the Act. This is for the reason that in terms of Section 139(1) of the Act the obligation to file a return of income is only when the total income of a person exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. So also the obligation to obtain PAN only arises on the income being in excess of the maximum amount not chargeable to tax. Therefore, non filing of return of income and/or not obtaining of PAN does not ipso facto give jurisdiction to reopen an assessment under Section 147/148 of the Act

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 13, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 4, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(vi)/ Article 12: Consideration received for sale of computer software programme in CD Rom is not assessable as “royalty”. The retrospective amendment in Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) to tax such receipts as royalty has no application to DTAA if the definition of the term “royalty” in the DTAA has remained unchanged

The retrospective amendment brought into statute with effect from 01.06.1976 cannot be read into the DTAA, because the treaty has not been correspondingly amended in line with new enlarged definition of ‘royalty’. The alteration in the provisions of the Act cannot be per se read into the treaty unless there is a corresponding negotiation between the two sovereign nations to amend the specific provision of “royalty” in the same line. The limitation clause cannot be read into the treaty for applying the provisions of domestic law like in Article 7 in some of the treaties, where domestic laws are made applicable. Here in this case, the ‘royalty’ has been specifically defined in the treaty and amendment to the definition of such term under the Act would not have any bearing on the definition of such term in the context of DTAA. A treaty which has entered between the two sovereign nations, then one country cannot unilaterally alter its provision

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 20, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 3, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1991-92
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 132(4): Admission of undisclosed income by assessee is not conclusive if no evidence is found to support the admission. A retraction, though belated, is valid. Failure to provide cross-examination to assessee of persons whose statements are relied up is fatal to the addition. CBDT Directive F.No.286/98/2013 IT (INV.II] dated 18/12/2014 prohibits additions on the basis of confession

Admission made by the assessee is not a conclusive proof and such admission can be used as an evidence unless it is not retracted. The assessee in this case has already retracted the statement which in our opinion is a valid retraction. Although there had been search in the case of Gokul Corporation and its partner Shri Suresh A Patel on which the Revenue has relied for making the additions in the case of the assessee but the Revenue could not bring any evidence or material except the statement of the assessee which was recorded on 8.1.96 and also the statements of Shri Subhash Pandey and Shri Kashyap Thakore and these statements were although recorded at the back of the assessee. When the assessee has asked for their cross-examination, the cross examination was not given to the assessee, although the statement of the assessee was recored in consequence of the said statement

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 22, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 3, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1996-97
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 43B: Issue of debentures to fund the interest liability does not amount to “actual payment” of the interest so as to qualify for deduction under Explanation 3C to Section 43-B

The question which has to be decided is whether the decision of this court in CIT vs. M. M. Aqua Technologies Ltd, which held that because of Explanation 3C to Section 43-B, any adjustment other than actual payment does not qualify for deduction under Section 43-B. As is evident from the discussion, the assessee’s review is premised on two major arguments, i.e. that the judgments of the Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank v Andhra Bank, 2006 (6) SCC 94 and Sunrise Associates vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2006 (5) SCC 603, have categorically held that debentures (issued in favour of the bank, in this case to discharge interest liability) amounted to payment and that such debentures, being actionable claims and securities, were to be deemed paid once issued

Read more ›