Home › 2017 › Page 19
Year: 2017

Archive for 2017

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 22, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 279: As there is no time limit prescribed for filing an application for compounding of an offense, the CBDT is not entitled to reject an application on the ground of 'inordinate delay'. The CBDT has no jurisdiction to demand that the assessee pay a 'pre-deposit' as a pre-condition to considering the compounding application. The larger question as whether in the garb of a Circular the CBDT can prescribe the compounding fee in the absence of such fee being provided for either in the statute or prescribed under the rules is left open

The Court finds nothing in Section 279 of the Act or the Explanation thereunder to permit the CBDT to prescribe such an onerous and irrational procedure which runs contrary to the very object of Section 279 of the Act. The CBDT cannot arrogate to itself, on the strength of Section 279 of the Act or the Explanation thereunder, the power to insist on a ‘pre-deposit’ of sorts of the compounding fee even without considering the application for compounding. Indeed Mr Kaushik was unable to deny the possibility, even if theoretical, of the application for compounding being rejected despite the compounding fee being deposited in advance. If that is the understanding of para 11(v) of the above Circular by the Department, then certainly it is undoubtedly ultra vires Section 279 of the Act. The Court, accordingly, clarifies that the Department cannot on the strength of para 11(v) of the Circular dated 23rd December 2014 of the CBDT reject an application for compounding either on the ground of limitation or on the ground that such application was not accompanied by the compounding fee or that the compounding fee was not paid prior to the application being considered on merits

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 10, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 22, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus purchases: Merely non-appearance of the supplier in absence of any other corroborate evidence cannot be a basis to justify the stand of the Revenue that the transaction of purchase is bogus

The only grievance of the Assessing Officer is that the assessee has failed to produce the party so as to establish genuineness of the transaction and secondly, no payment has been made to the party till the year end. The ld.CIT(A) while confirming the disallowance has stated that though confirmation has been obtained from the party, however, a simple confirmation is not sufficient to establish the fact of purchase without elaborating what more is required from the assessee to justify its claim

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 24, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 22, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 263: There is a distinction between “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry”. If the AO has called for the necessary details and the assessee has furnished the same, the fact that the AO is silent in the assessment order does not mean that he has not applied his mind so as to justify exercise of revisional powers by the CIT u/s 263

We are of the view, that there is a distinction between “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry”. In the present case the Assessing Officer collected necessary details, examined the same and then framed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, in such a situation the decision from Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del.)(supra), clearly comes to the rescue of the assessee . We are expected to ascertain whether the Assessing Officer had investigated/examined the issue and applied his mind towards the whole record made available by the assessee during assessment proceedings. Uncontrovertedly, necessary details/reply to the questionnaire were filed/produced by the assessee and the same were examined by the Assessing Officer, therefore, it is not a case of lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 18, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 21, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 1991-92
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 45/ 50(2): If an undertaking is sold as a running business with all assets and liabilities for a slump price, no part of the consideration can be attributed to depreciable assets and assessed as a short-term capital gain u/s 50(2). If the undertaking is held for more than three years, it constitutes a "long-term capital asset" and the gains are assessable as a long-term capital gain

In our considered opinion, the case of the respondent (assessee) does not fall within the four corners of Section 50 (2) of the Act. Section 50 (2) applies to a case where any block of assets are transferred by the assessee but where the entire running business with assets and liabilities is sold by the assessee in one go, such sale, in our view, cannot be considered as “short-term capital assets”. In other words, the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act would apply to a case where the assessee transfers one or more block of assets, which he was using in running of his business. Such is not the case here because in this case, the assessee sold the entire business as a running concern

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: April 18, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 21, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
An additional ground (relating to claim u/s 80-IA) cannot be permitted to be raised if the necessary evidence that the assessee is entitled to the claim is not on record. The fact that claim has been allowed by the AO in a subsequent year and that there is no reason why the claim should not be allowed in the present year is irrelevant. Also, the assessee must satisfy the appellate authority that the ground now raised was bona fide and the same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons

We note that it is an undisputed position before us that for the subject assessment year, the appellant assessee had not claimed benefit of Section 80IA of the Act in respect of its Jetty / Port either before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT(A). A claim for benefit under Section 80IA of the Act can only be made if the infrastructure facility such as Jetty / Port is, among other things, being run on the basis of an agreement for either developing or operating and maintaining or developing, operating and maintaining a new infrastructure facility. The sine qua non provided in SubSection (7) of Section 80IA of the Act is the furnishing along with its Return of Income, a report of audited accounts in Form 10CCB as required under Rule 18BBB(3) of the Act. The Form 10CCB which is required to be filed along with Return of Income has various details to be filled in, including the initial assessment year from which the deduction is being claimed, the nature of the activity carried out with regard to the infrastructure facility, namely, whether it is for developing or developing and operating or for developing, operating and maintaining the new infrastructure facility. It is only on examination of those details as submitted by the auditor in Form 10CCB that the claim of deduction can be considered. It is undisputed that for the subject assessment year, no Form 10CCB has been filed by the appellant assessee. Therefore, there is no evidence on record for subject assessment year to allow the claim. The submission of Mr.Agrawal for the appellant that primary evidence in the form of jetty is on record is not acceptable. Mere ownership or existence of jetty is not evidence of eligibility to the benefit of Section 80IA of the Act, which is admittedly conditional upon satisfaction of certain requirements as provided therein

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 21, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 21, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: An international transaction can be clubbed / aggregated with other international transactions if such transactions are closely connected with each other. The onus is on the assessee to establish the justification for clubbing the transactions. If the TPO has not applied TNMM at the entity level and has bench marked the royalty payment on standalone basis and not subjected the cost of production or other transactions to bench marking, the contention that when TNMM is applied at the entity level, there was no necessity of separate bench marking in respect of royalty transactions cannot be accepted

The only issue that arises for consideration before us is whether the TPO was justified in making the ALP adjustment in respect of royalty payment made to M/s. Falco Limited in the given facts of the present case. The royalty payment is made to M/s. Falco Limited for manufacturing electronic components by using technology, expertise and knowhow of Falco and marketing and selling components under the brand name of Falco in India as well as abroad by the assessee company. In consideration of same, royalty at the rate of 8% of sales was made by the appellant to M/s. Falco Limited. No doubt the law is settled to the extent that an international transaction can be clubbed / aggregated with other international transactions provided such transactions are closely connected with each other. In the cases cited by the ld. counsel for the appellant, this proposition of law was reiterated. But in the present case, the TPO had not applied TNMM at entity level. The TP study report submitted by the assessee company had been rejected by the TPO. This action of the TPO is confirmed by the Hon’ble DRP. But the TPO proceeded to bench mark the transaction of the royalty payment on stand alone basis. In the process, the cost of production or other transactions are not subjected to bench marking by the TPO. Therefore the contention of the ld. counsel that when the TNMM was applied at the entity level, there was no necessity of separate bench marking in respect of royalty transactions cannot be accepted

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 13, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 10, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Though Explanation 2 of s. 147 authorizes the AO to reopen an assessment wherever there is an "understatement of income", the AO is not entitled to assume that there is "understatement of income" merely because the assessee's income is "shockingly low" and others in the same line of business are returning a higher income. The invocation of the jurisdiction u/s 147 on the basis of suspicions and presumptions cannot be sustained

Without any concrete facts, reopening cannot be ordered merely on the presumption that the returned income is very shockingly lower than the total gross receipts. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officers completely erred in reopening assessments on the basis of either a suspicion that there is suppression of income or on the basis that persons in the same line of business are returning a higher income. Without even mentioning the comparables, no initiation of proceedings under Section 147 can be made

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 3, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 10, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
A disallowance u/s 14A & Rule 8D has to be made even in respect of securities that are held as stock-in-trade by the assessee. However, the disallowance has to be computed by taking into consideration only those shares which have yielded dividend income in the year under consideration

The object of s. 14A is to disallow the direct and indirect expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. There is no dispute that part of the income of the assessee from its business is from dividend which is exempt from tax whereas the assessee was unable to produce any material before the authorities below showing the source from which shares were acquired. The mere fact that those shares were old ones and not acquired recently is immaterial. It is for the assessee to show the source of acquisition of those shares by production of materials that those were acquired from the funds available in the hands of the assessee at the relevant point of time without taking benefit of any loan. If those shares were purchased from the amount taken in loan, even for instance, five or ten years ago, it is for the assessee to show by the production of documentary evidence that such loaned amount had already been paid back and for the relevant assessment year, no interest is payable by the assessee for acquiring those old shares

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: March 28, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 8, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Capital gains: An amount received from a wholly-owned subsidiary in consideration of transfer of shares of the WOS to a group of shareholders is not taxable as capital gains. The Department cannot subject a transaction under the Gift-tax Act and also levy tax under the Income-tax Act.

It is not in dispute that M/s Annamalaiar Textiles (P) Ltd. did not pay any amount to the shareholders who ultimately got the shares transferred in their names. The respondent was holding 100 per cent shares of M/s Annamalaiar Textiles (P) Ltd., before it was transferred to Group B. No payment was made to the shareholders belonging to Group B and, therefore, the question of there being any capital gains at the hands of the respondent herein does not arise

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 30, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 8, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 1997-98
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
A question relating to jurisdiction which goes to the root of the matter can always be raised at any stage. Issues relating to initiation of s. 147 proceedings and/or service of notice are questions relating to assumption of jurisdiction. If an issue has not been decided in appeal and has simply been remanded, the same can be raised again notwithstanding with the fact that no further appeal has been preferred (Sun Engineering Works 198 ITR 297 (SC) explained)

The principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) would not apply as the appellant is not claiming any deduction or relief on the taxibility of any item in the reopened assessment proceedings which had not been claimed in the original assessment

Read more ›