Home › 2018 › September › Page 3
Month: September 2018

Archive for September, 2018

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 4, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 7, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005- 06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: If appeals with reference to the quantum proceedings have been admitted by the Court on substantial questions of law, it means that there were debatable and arguable questions raised and so penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied (PCIT v. Shree Gopal Housing 167 DTR 236 distinguished). Penalty also cannot be levied if the claim was as per judicial precedents prevalent at the time of filing the ROI. Also, there must be a finding that the details supplied by the assessee in its return were incorrect or erroneous or false

In all these appeals, we find that the appeals with reference to the quantum proceedings have been admitted by this Honourable Court on a substantial question of law. That has also been recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order and the same is also not disputed before us. We find that the appeals were admitted as this Court found that there were debatable and arguable questions raised in the quantum proceedings. This being the case, we find that the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, was fully justified in confirming the order of the CIT (A) in all the three assessment years for deleting the penalty

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 31, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 7, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
A co-operative housing Society is not expected to indulge into profiteering business from its members. Transfer fees cannot be charged under the pretext of "voluntary donation". Amount which is accepted above permissible limits towards transfer fee is illegal and taxable as income in the hands of the society

The Society is not expected to indulge into profiteering business from the members and if such amount is earned, then it is taxable under the law. There is no bar for any member to pay donation to the Society, however, it should be voluntary without any compulsion and coercion. No manner the transfer fees can be charged under the pretext of donation

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 30, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 7, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 272A(1)(c) Penalty: The argument that penalty u/s 272A(1)(c) can be levied only for non-compliance of s. 131(1) and not s. 131(IA) is not correct because s. 131(1A) has to be read with s. 131(1). On facts, the penalty is justified because the conduct of the assessee is not bona fide. There is deliberate and complete defiance to the summons issued u/s 131(1A)

So far as the arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee that there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not submitting the details as called for by the ADIT (Investigation) is concerned, we find from the record that there was a deliberate defiance on the part of the assessee for non- submission of the same under the pretext that some of the details are available in the records of the Income Tax Department or some of the details are available in the Website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 23, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 3, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
The Revenue has been selective in its approach. It picks either the assessee or the AYs pertaining to that assessee for challenging the orders in relation to them, before the higher forums. This results in revenue leakage or perpetuation of wrongs affecting adversely the collection of revenue. The public at large is at a loss to understand as to why the Department/Revenue consistently loses the battle in the higher Courts. This could be then termed as a deliberate or intentional act. If the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India is going to conveniently overlook this and not bring the guilty persons to book by initiating disciplinary measures against them, then, no purpose will be served at all. This is not a short term exercise, but a major surgery which will have to be performed. If the Revenue Officials are prepared to take some bold decisions, then, only these state of affairs will improve and not otherwise

On numerous occasions, this Court has brought to the notice of the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India through the Commissionerates that the Revenue has been selective in its approach.It picks either the assessee or the assessment years pertaining to that assessee for challenging the orders in relation to them, before the higher forums.This results in revenue leakage or perpetuation of wrongs affecting adversely the collection of revenue. The public at large is at a loss to understand as to why the Department/Revenue consistently loses the battle in the higher Courts. This could be then termed as a deliberate or intentional act.6 If the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India is going to conveniently overlook this and not bring the guilty persons to book by initiating disciplinary measures against them, then, no purpose will be served at all.We know that the Appeal for the prior Assessment Year may not be properly drafted or does not contain the relevant details, much less the precise question of law and if that is dismissed, there will be definitely an impact on the Appeal relating to the Assessment Year under consideration.Hence, this is not a short term exercise, but a major surgery which will have to be performed. If the Revenue Officials are prepared to take some bold decisions, then, only these state of affairs will improve and not otherwise

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 23, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 3, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(viib), 68, 147 Bogus share capital/ premium: Entire law on whether alleged excessive premium charged for allottment of shares and alleged inability to prove genuineness of transaction can be assessed as unexplained cash credit explained in the light of High Court judgements

It was a submission on behalf of the Revenue that such large amount of share premium gives rise to suspicion on the genuineness (identity) of the shareholders, i.e., they are bogus. The Apex Court in a case in this context to the preamended section 68 has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Incometax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholder and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the revenue to add the same to the assessee’s income as unexplained cash credit

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 27, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 1, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
We are shocked that the UOI through the CIT has taken the matter so casually. The petitioners have given a totally misleading statement before this Court. Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.10 lacs to be paid (by the exchequer)

First of all this petition has been filed after a delay of 596 days. There is an inadequate and unconvincing explanation given for the delay in filing the petition. Secondly, it is mentioned in the proforma for first listing that a similar matter being C.A. No. 7096/2012 is pending in this Court. However, the office has given a report stating that C.A. No. 7096/2012 was decided by this Court as far back as on 27.09.2012. In other words, the petitioners have given a totally misleading statement before this Court. We are shocked that the Union of India through the Commissioner of Income Tax has taken the matter so casually

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 28, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 1, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Securities Transaction Tax: CBDT's clarification that where a derivative contract is being settled by physical delivery of shares, the transaction would not be any different from transaction in equity share where the contract is settled by actual delivery or transfer of shares and the rates of STT as applicable to such delivery based equity transactions shall also be applicable to such derivative transaction takes care of the grievance of the stake holders

In a nutshell, CBDT is of the view that where a derivative contract is being settled by physical delivery of shares, the transaction would not be any different from transaction in equity share where the contract is settled by actual delivery or transfer of shares and the rates of STT as applicable to such deliverybased equity transactions shall also be applicable to such derivative transaction

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 21, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 1, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07, 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 151: S. 150(1) overrides s. 149 but not s. 151. Accordingly, even if the assessment is reopened to make reassessment in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction of the appellate authority, the requirement of sanction u/s 151 is mandatory for issuing notice u/s 147. The failure to obtain sanction renders the reopening invalid

even if the assessment is reopened to make reassessment in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction of the appellate authority the requirement of sanction U/s 151 is mandatory for issuing notice U/s 147 of the Act. Even otherwise from the plain reading of Section 150(1) of the Act, it is clear that it begins with non-obstante clause as far as the limitation provided U/s 149 of the Act and therefore, Section 150(1) has an overriding effect on Section 149 and not over Section 151 of the Act. The requirement of sanction U/s 151 of the Act is in the nature of check and balance and it is a measure against the misuse of power by the assessing authority for assessment or reassessment based the reasons not found satisfactory by the authorities provided U/s 151 of the Act

Read more ›