S. 2(22)(e) provides that any “loan or advance” by a closely held company to a substantial shareholder shall be assessed as “deemed dividend“. The purpose is to tax accumulated profits distributed in the form of loans. Bearing this purpose in mind, the word “advance” has to be read in conjunction with the word “loan”. The attributes of a loan are that it involves a positive act of lending coupled with acceptance by the other side of the money as loan: it generally carries interest and there is an obligation of re-payment. The term “advance” may or may not include lending. The word “advance” if not found in conjunction with the word “loan” may or may not include the obligation of repayment. If it does then it would be a loan. Applying the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, the word “advance” means such advance which carries with it an obligation of repayment. Trade advance which are in the nature of money transacted to give effect to a commercial transactions do not fall within the ambit of s. 2(22)(e) (CIT Vs. Raj Kumar 318 ITR 462 followed)

The Tribunal is a judicial body and while the President exercises administrative control over the Benches, he has no power to write the ACRs of the Members. Further, being a judicial body, the Tribunal should have judicial autonomy and therefore, the Government cannot act like a reviewing authority

U/s 9(1)(vi) of the Act & Article 12 of the DTAA, “payments of any kind in consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of a literary, artistic or scientific work” is deemed to be “royalty“. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, a software programme constitutes a “copyright”. A right to make a copy of the software and use it for internal business by making copy of the same and storing it on the hard disk amounts to a use of the copyright u/s 14 (1) of that Act because in the absence of such a licence, there would have been an infringement of the copyright. Accordingly, the argument that there is no transfer of any part of the copyright and the transaction involves only a sale of a copyrighted article is not acceptable. The amount paid to the supplier for supply of the “shrink-wrapped” software is not the price of the CD alone nor software alone nor the price of licence granted. It is a combination of all. In substance unless a licence was granted permitting the end user to copy and download the software, the CD would not be helpful to the end user

A contention/ issue, which is not raised, dealt with or answered by the Tribunal, cannot be raised before the High Court for the first time in an appeal u/s 260A. Though s. 260A(6) empowers the High Court to “determine any issue which has not been determined by the Appellate Tribunal”, the word “determined” means that the issue is not dealt with, though it was raised before the Tribunal. The word “determined” presupposes an issue was raised or argued but there is failure of the Tribunal to decide or adjudicated the same. However, as the issue whether the expenditure is capital or revenue was not raised before the Tribunal, it does not arise from the order of the Tribunal and cannot be entertained (Mahalakshmi Textile Mills 66 ITR 710 (SC) distinguished)

It is wrong to say that an adjustment of refund u/s 245 is not a “recovery” only on the ground that s. 245 is placed in the Chapter of “Refunds”. The term “recovery” is comprehensive and includes adjustment thereby reducing the demand. In Circular No. 1914 dated 2.12.1993, even the CBDT has did not regard ‘recovery’ as excluding ‘adjustment’ u/s 245. However, different parameters may apply in considering a request for stay against coercive measures to recover the demand and a stay against refund adjustment. It is permissible for the authority to direct stay of recovery by coercive methods but not grant stay of adjustment of refund. However, when a simple & absolute order of stay of recovery is passed, it bars recover of the demand by way of adjustment of demand. The revenue must be obedient and respect the stay order and not over-reach or circumvent the stay order. No deviancy or breach should be made

Indexed cost of gifted assets has to be determined with reference to previous owner The assessee’s daughter purchased a flat on 29.1.1993 at a cost of Rs.50.48 lakhs. She gifted the flat to the assessee on 1.2.2003. The assessee sold …

CIT vs. Manjula J. Shah (Bombay High Court) Read More »

The assessee was assessed at New Delhi. Its PAN & TAN were allotted by the AO at New Delhi. All returns including the TDS returns were filed at New Delhi. Accordingly, there was complete absence of jurisdiction on the part of the AO at Mumbai to proceed against the assessee

As the payments made by the assessee to the Stock Exchange for violation of their regulation was not an account of an offence or which is prohibited by law, the invocation of the Explanation to s. 37 of the Act was not justified

“Full and true disclosure of material facts” means that the disclosure should not be garbled or hidden in the crevices of the documentary material which has been filed by the assessee with the AO. The assessee must act with candor. A full disclosure is a disclosure of all material facts which does not contain any hidden material or suppression of fact. It must be truthful in all respects

The assessment was sought to be reopened on account of retrospective amendment to s. 80HHC introduced by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 2005 with effect from 1st April 1998. If the legislature amends the provisions of the Act with retrospective effect, it cannot be said that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the purpose of assessment