Home › 2016 › Page 20
Year: 2016

Archive for 2016

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 24, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 15, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 143(3): In an AIR scrutiny assessment, the AO is not entitled to widen the scope of scrutiny without approval of the CIT as per CBDT's Instruction. Such an assessment order is not sustainable

In fact, what the AO did was to widen the scrutiny. Now, para 2 of CBDT Instruction is specific when it states that where it is felt that apart from the AIR information, there is potential escapement of income more than Rs. 10 lakhs, the case may be taken up for wider scrutiny with the approval of the administrative Commissioner. So, the proper course for the AO before making these additional enquiries would have been to take approval from the administrative Commissioner to widen the scrutiny. This, however, was not done and therefore, the action of the AO is violative of the CBDT Instruction

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: April 5, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 15, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 148: Law laid down in Jet Airways India 331 ITR 236 and Ranbaxy 336 ITR 136 that if AO does not make any addition for the reason stated for reopening, he cannot add any other income holds good even for years when Explanation 3 to s. 147 is operative

The argument of the Ld. DR that the ratio propounded in Jet Airways India vs. CIT 331 ITR 236 and Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT(2011) 336 ITR 136 does not apply since those cases related to assessment years when Explanation 3 to section 147 was not on the statute, we find has not merit since in the above mentioned decisions the Court has interpreted the provision of section 147 on first principle to hold that only if addition are made on account of income which the AO had reason to believe had escaped assessment that any other addition can be made. It is not Explanation 3 which had been interpreted in favour of the assessee in these cases. In fact we find that Explanation 3 empowers AO’s to make assessment on any matter which comes to their notice during assessment proceedings. But the same alongwith section 147 has been interpreted as stated above. Therefore, the presence or absence of Explanation 3 to section 147 does not nullify the interpretation given by the courts in the above stated judgments

Read more ›

Posted on by shreesh
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 29, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 45/ 48: Deferred consideration dependent on a contingency does not accrue unless the contingency has occurred and is not liable to capital gains tax in year of transfer

The contention of the Revenue that the impugned order is seeking to tax the amount on receipt basis by not having brought it to tax in the subject assessment year, is not correct. This for the reason, that the amounts to be received as deferred consideration under the agreement could not be subjected to tax in the assessment year 2006-07 as the same has not accrued during the year. As pointed out above, accrual would be a right to receive the amount and the assessee alongwith its co-owners have not under the agreement dated 25th January, 2006 obtained a right to receive Rs.20 crores or any specified part thereof in the subject assessment year. In the above view there could be no occasion to bring the maximum amount of Rs. 20 crores, which could be received as deferred consideration to tax in the subject assessment year as it had not accrued to the assessee.

Read more ›

Posted on by Dhaval Shah
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 16, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C does not apply to transfer of leasehold rights in land

Section 50C of the Act provides that if the consideration received or accruing is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority of the State Government for such transfer then the value so adopted or assessed or assessable shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration and the capital gains will be computed accordingly. The phraseology of section 50C of the Act clearly provides that it would apply only to “a capital asset, being land or building or both”. The moot question before us is as to whether such expression would cover the transfer of a capital asset being leasehold rights in land or building. There cannot be a dispute to the proposition that the expression land by itself cannot include within its fold leasehold right in land also. Of-course, leasehold right in land is also a capital asset and we find no fault with this stand of the Revenue. So however, every kind of a ‘capital asset’ is not covered within the scope of section 50C of the Act for the purposes of ascertaining the full value of consideration. Infact, the heading of section itself provides that it is “Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases”. Therefore, there is a significance to the expression “a capital asset, being land or building or both” contained in section 50C of the Act. The significance is that only capital asset being land or building or both are covered within the scope of section 50C of the Act, and not all kinds of capital assets

Read more ›

Posted on by Dhaval Shah
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 6, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(22)(d): Redemption of preference shares does not constitute "deemed dividend"

As can be seen by s. 2(22)(d), there should be a reduction of its capital and distribution to the shareholders out of the accumulated profits. Section 80(3) of the Companies Act states that the redemption of preference shares under this section by a company shall not be taken as reducing the amount of its authorised share capital. By virtue of section 80(3) redemption of preference shares cannot be considered as reduction of authorised share capital, therefore, treating them as deemed dividend does not arise, as the provisions of section 2(22)(d) can only be invoked only when there is distribution of accumulated profits by way of reduction of share capital. Therefore the question of invoking deemed dividend provision on this transaction does not arise, eventhough the redemption of shares are to be made out of the profits of the company by virtue of section 80(1) of the Companies Act. However, since it cannot be treated as reduction of authorised share capital by virtue of section 80(3) of the Companies Act, the amount received by assessee on redemption of preference shares cannot be treated as deemed dividend

Read more ›

Posted on by itatbar
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 18, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-2013
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: No disallowance can be made on shares held as stock-in-trade

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not following the order of Tribunal in asessee’s own case. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal had rejected the appeal of Department for assessment year 2010-11 on identical set of facts. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have maintained ‘Judicial Propriety’ in following the order of Appellate Authority. As of now we restrain ourselves from commenting on the judicial indiscipline committed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and expect that he shall be more careful in future in honouring the orders of the higher Appellate Authorities

Read more ›

Posted on by itatbar
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 19, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11 & 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 263: As issue of whether TDS should bee u/s 194C or 194H is subject to two views, revision is not possible

In the original assessment proceedings, the AO had analysed the payment in detail and then concluded that the provisions of sec. 194C are applicable. Also, not two but three views were possible viz. (i) TDS u/s 194H which was discussed by the AO in original order; (ii) TDS u/s 194C which was upheld by AO; and (iii) sec. 194A now sought to be taken by CIT. Since three views were possible, revision was not permissible. Furthermore, even on merits, it was held that view of the CIT was not correct because there was no money borrowed or debt incurred, and hence, payment made to NCL was not “income by way of interest”

Read more ›

Posted on by itatbar
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 16, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02, 2002-03
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: If the AO objects to the audit objection, he cannot have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and is not entitled to reopen the assessment

One of the key sources of dispute is the existing arrangement for follow up on audit objections by Internal Audit Party and the Revenue Audit Party. In terms of the existing arrangement, the AO is required to take corrective steps following audit objections. The corrective measures take the form of rectification or reassessment (by reopening the case under section 147 or revision by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under section 263). In the case of rectification, these are general in the nature of correction for arithmetical errors and other mistakes which are apparent from the record. The problem arises when the AO seeks to take corrective measures by invoking the provisions of section 147 or 263 of the Income tax Act. Since the audit object ions are based on mater ial on record and there is no occasion for new mater ial to be brought on record in the course of audit, any reopening of assessment or review by the Pr incipal Commissioner constitutes “change of opinion” in the eyes of the law. This being so, the corrective measure under section 147 or section 263 of the Income tax Act is held to be invalid by Courts.

Read more ›

Posted on by itatbar
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 16, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 43(5), Explanation to s. 73: Where the assessee is a dealer in shares, the entire business of share trading and derivatives should be treated as a composite business and aggregated before applying Explanation to
s. 73

Where the assessee is a dealer in shares, the entire business consists in sale purchase of shares, then, it should be treated as composite business. Also, assessee’s stand of treating the whole business as composite business has always been accepted by the revenue in earlier as well as subsequent years. Accordingly, whole of assessee’s business was treated as speculative and loss of current year was allowed to be set off against profits of the current year

Read more ›

Posted on by Brettlee
COURT: ,
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 30, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 10, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68: Share application money received from an associate concern cannot be assessed as cash credits if assessee has discharged its initial onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction

CIT(A) dealt with issue all the objections raised by the AO and after considering the documents placed on record, recorded a categorical finding to the effect that amount payable and receivable by the assessee was squared off which was in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act. Further finding was recorded to the effect that these companies were assessed with I.T. Department for several years. The identity and genuineness of the transaction was duly accepted. The detailed finding recorded by CIT(A) are as per material on record

Read more ›