Home › Archive for All Judgements › Page 145
Category: All Judgements

Archive for the ‘All Judgements’ Category

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 27, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 15, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 275(1)(a): For penalty proceedings initiated on issues unrelated to assessment of income (such as for s. 269SS/ 269T & TDS defaults), time limit runs from date of initiation of penalty proceedings and not from date of CIT(A)'s order

Since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required under sections 269SS and 269T are not related to the assessment proceeding but are independent of it, therefore, the completion of appellate proceedings arising out of the assessment proceedings or the other proceedings during which the penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E may have been initiated has no relevance for sustaining or not sustaining the penalty proceedings and, therefore, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 275 cannot be attracted to such proceedings

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 23, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 15, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05 to 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 253: In a cross-objection, a new legal issue can be raised for the first time before the ITAT

There is no difference between an appeal and a cross-objection. In a cross-objection, a legal issue which has not been raised before the lower authorities can be raised. The C.O. need not be confined to the points taken by the opposite party in the main appeal

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 27, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 15, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68: Despite documentary evidence and broker’s confirmation, genuineness of penny stock transactions has to be determined on the basis of ‘preponderance of human probabilities’. If assessee is unable to explain ‘intriguing’ facts and circumstances, genuineness of transaction cannot be accepted

Firstly, documentary evidences, in the face of unusual events, as prevailing in the instant case, and without any corroborative or circumstantial evidence/s, cannot be regarded as conclusive. Two, the preponderance of probabilities only denotes the simultaneous existence of several ‘facts’, each probable in itself, albeit low, so as to cast a serious doubt on the truth of the reported ‘facts’, which together make up for a bizarre statement, leading to the inference of collusiveness or a device set up to conceal the truth, i.e., in the absence of credible and independent evidences

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 25, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 15, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68: Only credits received during the year can be assessed as unexplained cash credits. Credits of earlier years, even if unexplained, cannot be assessed

Though the assessee could not furnish the confirmation of the loan and other evidences but such a loan could not have been added in the A.Y. 2005-06 as the same was taken in the earlier years and is being carried forward. In this year it is appearing balance of the current year. Thus, legally such an addition could not sustained in this year

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 25, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 15, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(22)(e)/ 271(1)(c): S. 2(22)(e) is a deeming provision and has to be strictly construed. Assessee can discharge onus by pointing to 'preponderance of probability' and If explanation is not found to be false then, even if amounts are assessed as 'deemed dividend', penalty cannot be levied

The degree of proof necessary under the Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) can be discharged by the assessee by pointing out the factors and the material in his favour, because explanation merely raises a rebuttal presumption to which assessee can always discharge his onus by pointing out the factors relating to preponderance of probability

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 7, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Reopening (even of s. 143(1) assessment) on the ground that a specific aspect requires verification is not permissible

In the present case, the AO does not state that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. All that the Revenue desires is verification of certain details and pertaining to the gift. That is not founded on the belief that any income which is chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and hence, such verification is necessary. That belief is not recorded and which alone would enable the Assessing Officer to proceed

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 25, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Mistake in claiming deduction of interest expenditure despite s. 43B attracts penalty

The assessee is a regular assessee, well serviced by tax and audit professionals. The latter issuing a disclaimer for being unable to state the amount disallowable u/s.43B in the absence of the relevant information, defeats its case of it being an inadvertent mistake. On what basis, then, one may ask, was the deduction claimed?

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 25, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11 & 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 221(1): Penalty cannot be levied for non-payment of S. A tax if the assessee has financial hardship

The assessee claimed that it was having meagre cash and current balances and was in financial constraints during the year under consideration. If there is financial hardship to the assessee it has to be considered as sufficient cause in which event penalty cannot be levied

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 10, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12 to 2013-14
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 253(1)(a): An appeal can be filed before the Tribunal against an order of the CIT(A) rejecting the stay application

The term ‘order’ has not been defined under the Act. It is judicially understood that the word ‘order’ is a noun and has been held equivalent to or synonymous with the word ‘decision’. Therefore, having held that the CIT(A) has passed the order u/s 250 of the Act, in our considered opinion, the appeal is clearly maintainable under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 253 of the Act

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 31, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 253(2): There is no judicial impropriety in the CIT filing an appeal before the Tribunal against his own order as CIT(A) deciding the appeal in favour of the assessee

The plea of the assessee that there was judicial impropriety in the case was not established because the present Commissioner of Income Tax Administration as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had passed the order and decided the issues on the basis of various case laws. However, when acting as Commissioner of Income Tax Administration and in view of the facts that there was no legal precedent by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court on the said issue, directed the Assessing Officer to file appeal against the impugned order. It is not a case where the present person was setting in judgment of the earlier order passed by him but was acting in the capacity of administrator wherein the issues were put before higher forum to adjudicate the same

Read more ›