S. 50-C: Extent to which reliance can be placed by AO on stamp duty valuation explained

S. 50-C is a rule of evidence in assessing the valuation of property for calculating capital gains and is rebuttable. It is well known that an immovable property may have various attributes, charges, encumbrances, limitations and conditions. The Stamp Valuation Authority does not take into consideration the attributes of the property for determining the fair market value and determines the value in accordance with the circle rates fixed by the Collector. The object of valuation by the Stamp Valuation Authority is to secure revenue on such sale and not to determine the true, correct and fair market value for which it may be purchased by a willing purchaser subject to and taking into consideration its situation, condition and other attributes such as it occupation by tenant, any charge or legal encumbrances

Govt. directed to take steps for filling vacancies of Members, providing accommodation to them and to consider increasing their retirement age limit

Even when retired District Judges are appointed as Members of the Sales Tax Tribunal they do not wish to continue on account of not being provided with residential accommodation. Very recently one Member (originally belonging to Judicial service) has tendered resignation only due to absence of residential accommodation in Mumbai. On account of the above difficulty of accommodation not being provided to the retired Judges who are appointed as Members, the High Court on the administrative side also finds it difficult to obtain willingness of retired Judges for appointment as Members of the Sales Tax Tribunal. It would be desirable for the State Government to provide residential accommodation to all the Members of the Tribunal so as to ensure proper functioning of the Tribunal

CBDT directed to inquire into conduct of AO in framing assessment with ill-will/ ulterior motive

The assessee is an honest citizen who deposited the entire amount in the bank and voluntarily filed return. He also made a complaint to the registering authority that the sale deed has been registered at a value much below the amount actually received. The other evidence produced by the assessee was more than sufficient to discharge the burden which the AO had unreasonably placed on the assessee. The ITO did not act in a bonafide manner. He discarded the overwhelming evidence led by the assessee without giving any reasons at all. The assessment was framed only on the ipse dixit of the AO which gives us reason to believe that he had exceeded his authority with some ill will or with ulterior motive. The CBDT should cause an enquiry into the conduct and motives of the ITO in framing the assessment and raising demand of income tax against the assessee

Department’s practice of not giving prompt & full credit for TDS condemned

Form 26AS, available on the department’s website, clearly reflects the assessee’s entitlement to credit for TDS. Instead of giving credit for the TDS, the department has adamantly continued to take the stand that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to furnish details. We are not impressed with such a stand. Computerization is with the object to facilitate easy access to the assessee and make the system more viable and transparent. In the event of any shortcoming of software programme or any genuine mistake, the Department is expected to respond to such inadvertence spontaneously by rectifying the mistake and give corresponding relief to the assessee. Instead of that, even when it is being brought to the notice of the Department by the assessee, by a rectification application and subsequent communication, not only it has chosen not to rectify the mistake, but, the lack of inter departmental coordination has driven the assessee to this Court for getting his legitimate due. This attitude for sure does not find favour with the Court, as more responsive and litigant centric system is expected; particularly in the era of computerization. Tax payers friendly regime is promised in this electronic age. For want of necessary coordination between the two departments, the assessee cannot be expected to be sent from pillar to the post. If the Centralized Processing Center meant for return processing, accounts, refund, storage of data etc. adds to the difficulties of the Tax payers, due to lack of distribution of work between back office and front office, and that too, after having been pointed out the actual error, a serious re-look is expected

S. 271(1)(c) penalty is valid even if claim is disclosed and as per CA certificate

While it is true that the Income-tax Act, 1961 is one of most vexed and complicated legislation and requires highest degree of interpretative skills and there are divergent views on interpretation of its provisions and while it is also true that penalty for concealment cannot be imposed merely because assessee’s interpretation or claim is rejected, such cases have to be distinguished from cases where the claim of the assessee is farcical or farfetched. Dubious and fanciful claims under the garb of interpretation, are a mere pretense and not bona fide. Absurd or illogical interpretations cannot be pleaded and become pretense and excuses to escape penalty. “Bona fides” have to be shown and cannot be assumed. The fact that the claim for deduction u/s 80IA was duly supported by the Chartered Accountant’s Certificate and prescribed forms signed by the CA cannot absolve and protect an assessee who furnishes in-accurate particulars because then in all cases where a form/certificate is furnished by the CA but a wrong claim of deduction is made, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed. Merely because the assessee complies with the statutory procedural requirement of filing the prescribed form and certificate of the Chartered Accountant cannot absolve the assessee of its liability if the act or attempt in claiming the deduction was not bona fide. On facts, the assessee’s claim was not tenable due to the Explanation to s. 80IA (13) which stipulates that benefit is not available to a contractor carrying on a works contract. The assessee has not shown any “tangible material” or basis as to why a clear statutory provision which excludes works contracts was ignored

S. 40(a)(ia) disallowance applies only to amounts “payable” as of 31st March and not to amounts already “paid” during the year. Merilyn Shipping (SB) approved

The revenue cannot take any benefit from the observations made by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Merilyn Shipping and Transport Ltd 136 ITD 23 (SB) to the effect that s. 40 (a) (ia) was introduced by the Finance Act, 2004 w.e.f. 1.4.2005 with a view to augment the revenue through the mechanism of tax deduction at source. S. 40(a)(ia) was brought on the statute to disallow the claim of even genuine and admissible expenses of the assessee under the head ‘Income from Business and Profession’ in case the assessee does not deduct TDS on such expenses. The default in deduction of TDS would result in disallowance of expenditure on which such TDS was deductible. On facts, tax was deducted as TDS from the salaries of the employees paid by Mercator Lines and the circumstances in which such salaries were paid by Mercator Lines for the assessee were sufficiently explained. It is to be noted that for disallowing expenses from business and profession on the ground that TDS has not been deducted, the amount should be payable and not which has been paid by the end of the year

As the assessee had disclosed all details in the return of income, at the highest it can be said that the claim of the assessee was not sustainable in law. But as there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income on the part of the assessee. penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could not be levied (Reliance Petroproducts 322 ITR 158 (SC) referred)

The only interim relief which is prayed for is for stay of the operation of the impugned order of the CAT. As the Petitioner did not challenge the order dated 5.5.2012 and as on 31.8.2012 Shri. H. L. Karwa took over the charge of the post of the President and continues to hold the charge of the post till today and as the appointment of Shri. Veerabhadrappa was purely adhoc, it is not a fit case to grant interim relief. Prayer for interim relief is rejected.

Though BFSL was a shell company with no asset other than the land and by buying the shares of BFSL, DLF in effect purchased the land, the transaction cannot be said to a sham or an unreal one. In coming to the conclusion that the transaction is a colourable devise, the authorities have been carried away by the fact that the assessee was able to avoid payment of income tax. The assessee did resort to tax planning and took advantage of the law/ loopholes in the law. After seeing how the loophole was exploited within the four corners of the law, it is open to Parliament to amend the law plugging the loophole. However it cannot be done by judicial interpretation. S. 10(38) of the Act is unambiguous. If the share holder chooses to transfer the lands through a transfer of the shares of the company owning the land, it would be a valid legal transaction in law and cannot be said to be a colourable devise or a sham merely because tax is avoided thereby (McDowell 154 ITR 148 (SC), Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC) & Vodafone International 341 ITR 1 (SC) referred)

Firstly, it is the settled position of law that every tax exemption should have a sunset clause. As the exemption in s. 115JB(6) & 115-O(6) did not have a sunset clause, the flaw is removed by the impugned amendment. Secondly, the exemption created an inequality between SEZ companies and other companies which is now removed. Thirdly, the exemptions provided to SEZ companies resulted in erosion of tax base. Fourthly, the impugned amendment relates to fiscal policy of the state and any decision in the economic sphere is adhoc and experimental in its nature and the Government is well within it sovereign power to regulate the same. Lastly, the impugned amendments do not transgress any of the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under the Constitution. The legislature can never be precluded from exercising its legislative power by resort to the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. Since it is an equitable doctrine, it must yield when equity so requires. The courts would decline to enforce this doctrine if it results in great hardship to government and would be prejudicial to the public interest