While it is true that on merely establishing a prima facie case, interim order of protection should not be passed, if on a cursory glance it appears that the demand raised has no leg to stand, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. As the CIT (A) had himself expressed opinion in the order that there is enough strength in the plea of the assessee for stay of the demand, there was no occasion to direct for deposit of 30 percent. The assessee is entitled to stay on furnishing adequate security (Dunlop India 154 ITR 172 (SC) & Pennar Industries followed)

In CIT vs. Polycott Corp 138 ITR 144 (Bom) & CIT vs. Vijaya V. Kavekar, it was held that Circular No.3 of 2011 has retrospective operation and applies even to pending cases. As regards Surya Herbals, the appeal does not involve any “cascading effect” as the department has not shown whether there are other appeals which raise the same point.

When no expenditure is incurred by the assessee in earning dividend income, no notional expenditure can be disallowed u/s 14A. The assessee had not retained shares with the intention of earning dividend. The dividend income was incidental to the business of sale of shares, which remained unsold by the assessee. It cannot be said that the expenditure incurred in acquiring the shares had to be apportioned to the extent of dividend income and that should be a disallowance u/s 14A.

The Proviso to s. 220(1) which empowers the AO to demand payment within a period lesser than 30 days with the prior approval of the JCIT cannot be exercised casually and without due application of mind. The AO & JCIT must apply their mind on how it would be detrimental to the interests of the Revenue to allow the full period of 30 days and record reasons. The reasons & approval must be made available to the assessee if he seeks them. On facts, as there was already a provisional attachment u/s 281B attaching the assessee’s mutual funds to the extent of Rs.36.54 crores, there would have been no basis for forming the reason to believe that allowing the period of 30 days would be detrimental to the Revenue. Merely because the end of the financial year is approaching that cannot constitute a detriment to the Revenue. The detriment to the Revenue must be akin to a situation where the demand of the Revenue is liable to be defeated by an abuse of process by the assessee. There is absolutely no justification for the AO to demand payment in 7 days and his action is highhanded and contrary to law

The AO’s action of assessing the award as income shows utter disregard to the order of the Tribunal and lacks judicial propriety which is not expected from the AO who is subordinate to the Tribunal. The AO’s action of threatening the assessee with penalty and prosecution and deputing his inspector to collect the advance-tax is certainly not a healthy practice. In order to gain faith of the assessees and create confidence in the minds of the tax payers and for smooth administration of tax law, the Revenue authorities must act in a fair and legal manner. Every action of the State and its instrumentality should be fair, legitimate and above board and without any affection or aversion. The Government cannot be permitted to play dirty games with the citizens of this country to coerce them in making payments which the citizens were not legally obliged to make. If any money is due to the Government, the Government should take appropriate steps, but it should not take extra legal steps or adopt the course of maneuvering. Because of discontentment, it is necessary to provide guidelines for just exercise of the power of Revenue authorities. To prevent the abuse of power and to see that it does not become a new despotism, courts are gradually evolving the principles to be observed while exercising such power. New problems call for new solutions

In the present case, as in several cases which have come up before this Court and particularly in the month of March, it is evident that the AO & DIT have both had scant regard to the parameters which have been laid down by this Court for disposal of stay applications in KEC International Ltd 251 ITR 158 & UTI Mutual Fund. No reasons are indicated. The orders do not contain a prima facie evaluation of the issues which would arise in appeal. In UTI Mutual Fund, this Court was constrained to issue a cautionary observation to the effect that AOs and Appellate Authorities, when they dispose of applications for stay, act as quasi judicial authorities and not merely as tax gatherers of the Revenue. While they have a duty of protecting the interests of the Revenue, they need to mitigate the hardship to the assessee and applications for stay must be considered objectively. The assessee does have serious issues to be urged before the CIT (A) and the AO & DIT ought to have granted a complete stay of demand u/s 220(6)

S. 32(1)(ii) allows depreciation on “intangible assets” which are defined to mean “know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature”. Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, the expression “business or commercial rights of similar nature” need not answer the description of “knowhow, patents, trademarks, licenses or franchises” but must be of similar nature as the specified assets. The specified intangible assets are not of the same kind and are clearly distinct from one another. The nature of “business or commercial rights” cannot be restricted to only the aforesaid six categories of assets but can be of the same genus in which all the aforesaid six assets fall and form part of the tool of trade of an assessee facilitating smooth carrying on of the business. The intangible assets, viz., business claims; business information; business records; contracts; employees; and knowhow, are all assets, which are invaluable and result in carrying on the transmission and distribution business by the assessee without any interruption. These intangible assets are comparable to a license to carry out the existing transmission and distribution business of the transferor. In the absence of the aforesaid intangible assets, the assessee would have had to commence business from scratch and go through the gestation period whereas by acquiring the aforesaid business rights along with the tangible assets, the assessee got an up and running business. Accordingly, the intangible assets acquired under slump sale agreement were in the nature of “business or commercial rights of similar nature” and eligible for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) (Techno Shares 327 ITR 323 (SC) followed) (Q whether goodwill per se is eligible for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) left open)

S. 80IB (10)(b) specifies the size of the plot of land but not the size of the housing project. While the plot must have a minimum area of one acre, it need not be a vacant plot. The object of s. 80IB (10) is to boost the stock of houses. There can be multiple housing projects on a plot of land having minimum area of one acre

The AO should examine & compute the disallowance on the basis of what is laid down in Maxopp Investment Ltd 203 TM 364 (Del). However, the quantum of disallowance, if any, to be made by the AO will not exceed the disallowance which was made in the original assessment order as reduced by the CIT(Appeals)

S. 220(6): Guidelines laid down on how stay applications should be dealt with The assessee, a mutual fund, was a beneficiary of a trust named India Corporate Loan Securitisation Trust which was set up for securitising a loan of Rs.300 …

UTI Mutual Fund vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) Read More »