Home › 2017 › Page 3
Year: 2017

Archive for 2017

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: , , ,
DATE: July 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194H, 201(1): An obligation to deduct TDS u/s 194H arises only if the relationship is that of "principal and agent" and if a "payment" is made. As the relationship between the assessee and the distributor was that of "principal to principal" and as the "discount" did not amount to a "payment", there was no liability to deduct TDS

Taking into account the provisions of Section 182 of the Contract Act and the arrangement which has been entered into between the company and the distributor and taking into account the provisions of Section 194H, the Tribunal while considering the evidence on record, in our considered opinion, has misdirected itself in considering the case from an angle other than the angle which was required to be considered by the Tribunal under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal has travelled beyond the provisions of Section 194H where the condition precedent is that the payment is to be made by the assessee and thereafter he is to make payment. In spite of our specific query to the counsel for the department, it was not pointed out that any amount was paid by the assessee company. It was only the arrangement by which the amount which was to be received was reduced and no amount was paid as commission

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 29, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 263 Revision: Explanation 2 to s. 263 inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 does not override the law as interpreted by the various High Courts whereby it is held that the CIT cannot treat the AO's order as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue without conducting an enquiry and recording a finding. If the Explanation is interpreted otherwise, the CIT will be empowered to find fault with each and every assessment order and also to force the AO to conduct enquiries in the manner preferred by the CIT, thus prejudicing the mind of the AO, This will lead to unending litigation and no finality in the legal proceedings which cannot be the intention of the legislature in inserting the Explanation

The ld PCIT has not referred to Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act which has been inserted with effect from 01.06.2015 however we agree with the finding of the coordinate bench in the case of Narayan Tatu Rane v. Income Tax Officer [(2016) 70 taxmann.com 227], wherein it has been held that Explanation cannot said to have overridden the law as interpreted by the various High Courts, where the High Courts have held that before reaching a conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, the Commissioner himself has to undertake some enquiry to establish that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: November 17, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 2, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Taxability of Gifts u/s 56(2)(vi): A receipt cannot be taxed u/s 56(2)(vi) merely on conjecture or surmises. The AO has to prove beyond doubt that a particular receipt is taxable as income. Merely because the person who paid the amount does not initiate any action for recovery of money is not sufficient for making addition

The AO has observed in his assessment order that SPCL has not taken any action for recovery of the amount, even after lapse of three years from the date of payment. The AO further observed that though the assessee has procured various immovable properties in his personal name, the company has failed to initiate necessary proceedings to get the land procured in their name or return the money given to the assessee. No interest has been charged on money paid to the assessee. All these facts goes to prove undisputed fact that the transactions are not genuine, therefore, the AO opined that impugned amount is taxable under the provisions of section 56(2)(vi) of the Act. We do not find any merit in the findings of the A.O. for the reason that merely because the person, who paid the amount does not initiate any action for recovery of money should not be not a reason for making addition towards amount received as assessee’s income. The AO has to prove beyond doubt a particular receipt is taxable in the given circumstances within the meaning of the said provision

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 15, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 2, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Undisclosed income found in search: Law on whether statement obtained u/s 132(4) admitting earning of undisclosed income, which is allegedly retracted, can be used for making assessment explained in the light of P.V. Kalyanasundaram 294 ITR 49 (SC), S. Kadar Khan 352 ITR 480 (SC) and CBDT’s Circular

From the above, it is apparent that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)’s reliance upon the so called retraction of the admission during search is not cogent. Similarly, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reliance upon the CBDT Circular of not obtaining confession is also out of place. It is clear that the registers were found which clearly detailed about undocumented surgeries performed by Dr. Ashok Chopra and unaccounted cash receipts. Based upon this Dr. Ashok Chopra has admitted offer of Rs.1.74 crores. Dr. Ashok Chopra had also accepted the working of this figure. As already noted there was never any retraction whatsoever by Dr. Ashok Chopra. The said admission of Dr. Ashok Chopra was also duly accepted and corroborated by Smt. Madhu Chopra, the director of the company. Under these circumstances, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)’s contradictory acceptance that no incriminating documents were found, is not at all acceptable

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: November 16, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: Imp principles law down reg (i) disallowance for single segment companies being investors and dealers in shares and having to incur all business expenses under normal circumstances, (ii) strategic investments, (iii) securities held as stock-in-trade, (iv) inclusion of securities which have not yielded any exempt income and (v) whether diminution in value of securities constitutes "expenditure" for disallowance

Strategic investments/stock in trade have to be excluded for computing disallowance under 14A. The AO should keep in mind that the assessee is a single segment company being an investor and dealer in shares & securities and consequently all the business expenses ought to have been incurred towards this segment under normal circumstances unless otherwise shown

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 23, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 276C/277 Prosecution: Submission that claim of depreciation on land was a “mere clerical mistake” is not acceptable if the assessee did not file a revised return to correct the alleged mistake. A claim in a return which is scrutinized by the auditors and the directors cannot be considered as a mere accounting mistake

It is a manifest procedure that before filing of the Income Tax return for the assessment year 2007-2008 by the petitioner, the same is scrutinized, firstly, by the auditors of the company. Secondly, by the directors of the company before endorsing their signatures on the final Balance Sheet. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a mere accounting mistake

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 14, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: In the case of credit as share capital by corporate entity, whose existence is shown by its registration with Registrar of companies and its filing of tax returns, adverse conclusion is not justified merely because its directors are not produced personally before the AO by the assessee. The AO has to demonstrate with specific evidence that the assessee has in reality obtained accommodation entries by showing cash deposits linked to the investors

Section 68 casts the initial burden of proof on the assesse to show prima facie and to explain the nature and source of credit found in its books. When the statute places the burden of proof in income tax cases on the tax payer, it is understood to be only the initial burden. When the tax payer explains the credit by providing evidence of identity, confirmation and credit worthiness, the burden shifts on the revenue to show that the explanation is not satisfactory or incorrect. In the case of credit as share capital by corporate entity, whose existence is shown by its registration with Registrar of companies and its filing of tax returns, adverse conclusion is not justified merely because its directors are not produced personally before the assessing officer by the tax payer

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 23, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 28, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Low Tax Effect Circular: The view of the two-judge bench in Suman Dhamija & Gemini Distilleries that CBDT's low tax Circular dated 09.02.2011 cannot be given retrospective effect cannot be followed as it is contrary to the three-judge bench verdict in Surya Herbal. A beneficial circular has to be applied retrospectively while an oppressive circular has to be applied prospectively. Circular dated 9.2.2011 has retrospective operation except for two caveats: (i) The Circular should not be applied ipso facto when the matter has cascading effect and/or (ii) where common principles are involved in subsequent group of matters or a large number of matters

We are of the view that the matter needs to be put to rest and a clarity be obtained in view of the impact of this issue on pending cases before the High Courts as well as the cases which have been disposed of by various High Courts by applying the Circular of 2011 to pending litigations. In our view the matter has been squarely put to rest taking further care of the interest of the Revenue by the order passed by the three Judges Bench of this Court in Surya Herbal Ltd. case (supra), which had put two caveats even to the retrospective application of the Circular. The subsequent orders have been passed by the two Judges Bench without those orders being brought to the notice of the Court, a duty which was cast on the Department to have done so to avoid the ambiguity which has arisen. Thus, the said view of the three Judges Bench would hold water and the Circular would apply even to pending matters but subject to the two caveats provided in Surya Herbal Ltd. case (supra).

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 10, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 28, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: Companies which invest share capital cannot be treated as bogus if they are registered and have been assessed. Once the assessee has produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of such companies, the burden shifts to the Revenue to establish their case. Reliance on statements of third parties who have not been subjected to cross examination is not permissible. Voluminous documents produced by the assessee cannot be discarded merely on the basis of statements of individuals contrary to such public documents

This Court in the Judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, have come to the conclusion that once the Assessee has produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of such Companies, the burden would shift on the Revenue-Appellants herein to establish their case. In the present case, the Appellants are seeking to rely upon the statements recorded of two persons who have admittedly not been subjected to cross examination. In such circumstances, the question of remanding the matter for re-examination of such persons, would not at all be justified. The Assessing Officer, if he so desired, ought to have allowed the Assessee to cross examine such persons in case the statements were to be relied upon in such proceedings. Apart from that, the voluminous documents produced by the Respondents cannot be discarded merely on the basis of two individuals who have given their statements contrary to such public documents

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: November 1, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 28, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 45/ 48: The scheme of the Act is to assess real income and not hypothetical income. The word "accrue" in "full value of consideration received or accruing" in s. 45 means that the assessee has a legally enforceable right to receive the sum. An amount which is payable only on fulfillment of conditions does not create an enforceable right and has to be excluded while computing capital gains

The expression “full value of consideration received or accruing” would mean the amount actually received by the assessee or consideration which has accrued to the assessee. The expression “accrue” means a right acquired by the assessee to receive income. Unless, a debt due by somebody has been created in favour of assessee, it cannot be said that he has acquired a right to receive the income or that income has accrued to him. An amount can accrue to assessee if he acquires a legally enforceable right to receive it from the debtor. The entire purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is to assess the real income of the assessee. Therefore, the Departmental Authorities cannot assess any hypothetical or notional income to tax

Read more ›