Home › Archive for All Judgements › Page 236
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: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 10, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

On facts, the allegation against the Judge was that he did not prepare judgments on his own but got it prepared through some body else. The view of the High Court that it is not possible to hold an enquiry and that holding of such enquiry should be dispensed with in view of the fact that if an enquiry is held the same may lead to the question of validity of several judgments rendered by the Judge is a legal and valid ground for not holding an enquiry. There was also no necessity for giving the Judge any opportunity of hearing before removal from service

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 9, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

No order u/s 201(l) or (1A) holding the payer to be in default can be passed where the Revenue has not taken any action against the payee and the time limit for taking action against the payee u/s 147 has expired. On facts, the admitted position is that no assessment has been made in the hands of the payee in respect of the sums received from the assessee in respect of GDR issues. Similarly no proceedings have been taken against it till date for assessing such income. The time limit for issuing notice u/s 148 has also come to an end. As the time limit for taking action against the payee u/s 147 is not available, and there is no course left to the Revenue for making the assessment of the non-resident, exconsequenti, no lawful order can be passed against the assessee either u/s 201(1) or (1A) (Mahindra & Mahindra 313 ITR 263 (Mum) (SB) (AT) followed)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 9, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The CA’s explanation that the assessee had taken away the file and that he suffered a paralytic stroke does not inspire any confidence because the relevant documents and information were supplied to him. The assessee accepted the fact that the s. 80HHC claim was not maintainable during the assessment proceedings. Once it is established that no payment was received against the export, the certificate issued by the CA was false. It is a bogey raised by the CA that he has verified all the documents and only then issued the certificate. On the quantum of punishment, on the one hand, the CA pleads his sickness, has an otherwise unblemished practice of 21 years and the incident is old. On the other hand, the misconduct is of serious nature because submitting a false/bogus certificate to the client to enable him to make false claim of deduction under the Income-tax Act, is of serious offence. That the CA made an attempt to dupe the tax authorities and help the assessee to avoid the tax to that extent such a conduct has to be taken seriously. He accordingly cannot be let off merely by giving him reprimand. Some penalty needs to be imposed so that it acts as deterrent and such professional misconduct are not committed. Weighing the circumstances, the ends of justice would be subserved by removing his name from the Register of Members for a period of six months

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 8, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

In a case where the consideration for the transfer was received several months after the date of transfer, the period of 6 months for making deposit u/s 54EC should be reckoned from the date of actual receipt of the consideration. If the period is reckoned from the date of agreement and receipt of part payment at the first instance, it would lead to an impossible situation by asking assessee to invest money in specified asset before actual receipt of the same. Also, s. 54EC requires the “consideration” to be invested. If the consideration is not received, there is no question of investing it (S. Gopal Reddy 181 ITR 378 (AP), Janardhan Dass 299 ITR 210 (All) Darapaneni Chenna Krishnayya 291 ITR 98 (AP) (compulsory acquisition cases) followed)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 8, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

S. 54F is a beneficial provision for promoting the construction of residential house & requires to be construed liberally for achieving that purpose. The intention of the Legislature was to encourage investments in the acquisition of a residential house and completion of construction or occupation is not the requirement of law. The words used in the section are ‘purchased’ or ‘constructed’. The condition precedent for claiming benefit u/s 54F is that the capital gain should be parted by the assessee and invested either in purchasing a residential house or in constructing a residential house. Merely because the sale deed had not been executed or that construction is not complete and it is not in a fit condition to be occupied does not disentitle the assessee to claim s. 54F relief (Sardarmal Kothari 302 ITR 286 (Mad) followed)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 8, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

On the issue as to the “full value of consideration“, the department’s argument that since the transferor’s liabilities have been taken over by the transferee, it would have to be treated as consideration received by the transferor is not acceptable. In the case of a slump sale, one lump sum value of the undertaking derived by adding all assets and reducing all the liabilities is arrived at. This is the “full value of the consideration”. If one adds the liabilities to this value, one is arriving at the consideration for the “assets” but not the consideration for the “undertaking“. Accordingly, the “consideration” is Rs. 143 crores and not Rs. 300 crores as calculated by the AO. Also, once the sale consideration has been approved by the High Court, it is unrealistic for the Revenue to contend that the consideration of Rs. 143 crore does not represent the full value of consideration of the undertaking (George Henderson 66 ITR 622 (SC), Gillanders Arbuthnot 87 ITR 407 (SC) & Attili N. Rao 252 ITR 880 (SC) distinguished)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 8, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Jurisdiction under Section 263 can be exercised whenever it is found that the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Not holding such inquiry as is normal and not applying mind to relevant material would make the assessment ‘erroneous’ warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being ‘erroneous’. Non application of mind and omission to follow natural justice is in same category. Daga Entrade 327 ITR 467 (Gau) lays down the correct law and is not in conflict with Rajendra Singh 1979 STC 10 (Gau)

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 6, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The object of the proviso to s. 54EC is to provide a ceiling of Rs. 50 lakhs on investment by an assessee in the long term specified assets. If the assessee’s interpretation is accepted then, because the transfer took place of assets has taken place from 1st Oct to 31st March, the assessee is able to invest Rs. 50 lakhs in the financial year in which the transfer took place and Rs. 50 lakhs in the subsequent financial year. However, assessees who have made a transfer of assets from 1st April to 30th Sept will not be entitled to do so. Accordingly, the investment has to be linked to the financial year in which transfer has taken place and the claim for deduction cannot exceed Rs. 50 lakhs

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 6, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

In Allied Motors 224 ITR 677 & Alom Extrusions 319 ITR 306, the Supreme Court held that the amendments to the aforesaid provision (s. 43B) have retrospective application. Also, in R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala 82 ITR 570 (SC), the Supreme Court held that a provision which was inserted the remedy to make a provision workable requires to be treated with retrospective operation so that reasonable deduction can be given to the section as well. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, this court cannot decide otherwise. Hence the appeal is dismissed.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 5, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

S. 201(3) inserted by the FA 2009 w.e.f. 1.4.2010 imposes a time limit for the passing of s. 201 orders. The Proviso to s. 201(3) provides that an order for a financial year commencing on or before 1.4.2007 may be passed at any time on or before 31.3.2011. In the present case, the proceedings were initiated after the search on 16.11.2009. On this date, the amended provisions of s. 201 (3) had not come into force. Accordingly, the law prevailing as on that date as per NHK & Hutchison applied where it was held that an order u/s 201 could not be passed after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the FY. The s. 201 order was consequently beyond limitation. (H.M.T. Ltd. (P&H) & Bhura Exports 202 TM 88 (Cal) not followed)

Read more ›