Home › 2016 › November › Page 2
Month: November 2016

Archive for November, 2016

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 2, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 7, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 279(2) Compounding of offenses: The fact that the assessee has been convicted of an offense does not mean that the application for compounding of the offense is not maintainable. Under the guidelines, the competent authority has to examine the merits of the case and decide whether there is a case for compounding. There are no fetters on the powers of the competent authority under the guidelines. An appeal filed against a conviction is a "proceeding" for s. 279(2).

The power of compounding is exercisable when proceedings are pending. In the case on hand, the sentence imposed on the petitioner has been suspended by the Appellate Court and the appeal is still pending. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether that conviction by the Criminal Court should be the only reason for rejecting the petitioner’s application for compounding the offence. Clause 4.4 of the guidelines states that cases not to be compounded. It commences with a non obstante clause stating that notwithstanding anything contained in the guidelines, the category of cases mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) should normally not be compounded. Thus, the guidelines does not specifically place an embargo on the competent authority to consider the application for compounding merely on the ground when the assessee has been convicted by a court of law

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 30, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 7, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2002-03 to 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 153C: An order u/s 153C passed without obtaining the approval of the JCIT u/s 153D is without jurisdiction and void in view of Calcutta Knitwears 362 ITR 673 (SC) and CBDT Circular No. 24/15 dated 31.12.2015

The guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred to in para 2 above, with regard to recording of satisfaction note may be brought to the notice of all for strict compliance. It is further clarified that even if the AO of the searched person and the “other person” is one and the same then also he is required to record his satisfaction as has been held by the Courts. In view of the above, filing of appeals on the issue of recording of satisfaction note should also be decided in the light of the above judgment. Accordingly, the Board hereby directs that pending litigation with regard to recording of satisfaction note under section 158BD/153C should be withdrawn/not pressed if it does not meet the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 5, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 1, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10A/10B: After the change in scheme from “exemption” to “deduction” w.e.f. 01.04.2001, brought forward unabsorbed loss & depreciation of other 10B units and non-10B units are not liable for set off against the current year's profit of the 10B unit. The contrary law laid down in Himatasingike Seide 156 Taxman 151 (Kar), as approved by the Supreme Court, deals with the law pre 01.04.2001 when s. 10A/10B provided for an “exemption” and not a “deduction”

We find that the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Himatasingike Seide Ltd. (supra) which was undisturbed by the Apex Court was in respect of Assessment Year 1994-95. Thus it dealt with the provisions of Section 10B of the Act as existing prior to 1 April 2001 which was admittedly different from Section 10B as in force during Assessment Year 2009-10 involved in this appeal. Section 10B of the Act as existing prior to 1 April 2001 provided for an exemption in respect of profits and gains derived from export by 100% Export Oriented Undertakings and now it provides for deduction of profits and gains derived from a 100% Exported Oriented Units

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 5, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 1, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1997-98
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Even if the claim for s. 80-IA deduction is contrary to Pandian Chemicals 262 ITR 278 (SC) and Liberty India 317 ITR 218 (SC), the assessment cannot be reopened (beyond 4 years) in the absence of tangible material. The reasons recorded for the reopening cannot be improved or supplemented later

The rationale furnished by the revenue in its counter affidavit and reiterated in the court during the hearing was that a component of income which was otherwise inadmissible but escaped the notice of the AO, because of the ratio in Liberty India and Pandian (supra) is unpersuasive. Besides, the lack of any reference to objective material, cannot in any way improve the case of the revenue – much less its reference to otherwise binding judgments that could have been the basis of a valid revision by the revenue under Section 264. It goes without saying that statutory orders containing reasons are to be judged on the basis of what is apparent and not what is explained later, as the validity of those orders does not improve with time or on account of better explanations furnished in the course of legal proceedings (refer M.S. Gill and Anr. vs. Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 581)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 22, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 1, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 45/48: In valuing the shares of a privately held co, the “enterprise valuation” has to be taken by valuing even the assets held by subsidiaries of the Company. It is common for the sellers to charge a “controlling premium” for the sale of the shares. Such transfers to enable restructuring and re-aligning the shareholding pattern are genuine and bona fide. The alleged excess consideration for the sale of the shares cannot be treated as “unexplained income”

The exit from the closely held company BEC Industrial Investment Company Private limited with its subsidiaries could in commercial parlance definitely command premium in addition to the normal price based on NAV as first of all the valuation of the subsidiary would get embedded in the price of share of BEC Industrial Investment company Private Limited and that valuation has to be done based on present value of enterprise and not necessarily the book value as represented by financial statements and also controlling premium is embedded in the price for the shares paid by acquiring shareholders to the selling shareholder group to vest/strengthen their control in the BEC Industrial Investment Private Limited which shall get embedded in mutually agreed negotiated price between the buyer and the seller

Read more ›