Home › Archive for Tribunal › Page 16
Category: Tribunal

Archive for the ‘Tribunal’ Category

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 1, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 10, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: Failure by the AO to offer cross-examination of the persons whose statements are relied upon means that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee. Dept's plea for a remand is not acceptable if the assessee has discharged primary onus (Nova Promoters 342 ITR 169 (Del) & Jansampark Advertising 375 ITR 373 (Del) distinguished). Paradise Inland 98 CCH 0417 followed

The assessee was supplied with the seized material at the fag end of the assessment proceedings and assessee sought opportunity to cross examine these persons for rebuttal of the allegation. However, the AO did not provide any opportunity to the assessee to cross examine these persons on behalf of assessee to find out the truth. Therefore, such statements cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. We rely upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chelaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) and of Bombay High Court in case of Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 1, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 6, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Tax Planning: The fact that the assessee bought and sold shares of groups concerns with a view to book loss and off-set the capital gains from another transaction does not mean that the loss can be treated as bogus if the documentation is in order. The loss cannot be treated as "speculation loss" under the Explanation to s. 73 because the shares were held as investments

The claim of assessee-company is supported by the documents on record. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) rightly came to the finding that the assessee-company has genuinely entered into purchase and sale of shares and if any, loss have been suffered by the assessee-company, A.O. cannot treat the same as non-genuine due to extraneous considerations or irrelevant reasons in the assessment order

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 17, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 29, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(14)/ 28(va): The "right to sue" which arises on breach of a development agreement is a "personal right" and not a "capital asset" which can be transferred. Consequently, the damages received for relinquishment of the "right to sue" is a non-taxable capital receipt (all judgements considered)

A development agreement was executed which enabled the assessee to utilize the land for construction and for sharing of profits. This right/advantage accrued to the assessee was sought to be taken away from the assessee by way of sale of land. The prospective purchaser as well as the defaulting party (owner) perceived threat of filing suit by developer and consequently paid damages/ compensation to shun the possible legal battle. The intrinsic point with respect to accrual of ‘right to sue’ has to be seen in the light of overriding circumstances as to how the parties have perceived the presence of looming legal battle from their point of view. I t is an admitted position that the defaulting party has made the assessee a confirming party in the sale by virtue of such development agreement and a compensation was paid to avoid litigation. This amply shows the existence of ‘right to sue’ in the perception of the defaulting party.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 12, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 26, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 263 Revision: U/s 114(e) of the Evidence Act, there is a presumption that a s. 143(3) assessment order is regularly passed after application of mind. If the assessee is consistently following the same method of valuation of closing stock, the CIT is not entitled to disturb the consistent method (all judgements referred)

The conclusions being drawn up as a result of enquiry is a highly subjective exercise and as to what is appropriate conclusion is something on which perceptions vary from person to persons. These variations in the perceptions of the Assessing Officer vis-a- vis that of the Commissioner, cannot render an order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 10, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 19, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 263(1) obligates the CIT to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard before passing of his order. While the CIT is entitled to consider a point which is not stated in the show-cause notice, he cannot pass the revision order unless the assessee is given the opportunity of being heard. Such an order is untenable in the eyes of law (Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) followed)

Notably, section 263(1) of the Act obligates the Commissioner to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard before passing of his order. No doubt the Commissioner is not disentitled to consider a point which is not stated in the notice so issued. However, the obligation to given an opportunity to the assessee of being heard on the point on the basis of which he finds it expedient to treat the assessment order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, is definitely cast on the Commissioner, as opined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 13, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194-H TDS: The law in Idea Cellular 325 ITR 148 (Del) that there is a principal-agent relationship between the telecom company and the dealers does not mean that a similar relationship can be inferred between the dealers and the sub-dealers. The incentive paid by the dealers to sub-dealers cannot be equated with commission as stipulated u/s194H and so there is no requirement for deducting TDS

There is no agency agreement between the assessee and his dealers/sub-dealers. The agency relationship between the assessee and the cellular operators cannot be inferred or presumed in the transaction between the assessee and his sub-dealers. The reason being the SIM cards, vouchers belonged to the cellular operators/cellular entities and these cellular operators/telecom entities ensure that payment is received in respect of those prepaid vouchers and SIM cards which are sold to the subscribers and unsold SIM cards are returned back to them and even if such SIM cards are returned, then these cellular/telecom entities are required to be made payment against them and the SIM card stocked with the distributors are the property of service provider, i.e., the telecom/cellular entities

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 7, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 13, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(47)/ 54: Though an unregistered agreement to sell does not entitle the parties to seek part performance u/s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it can be a basis for a suit for specific performance in view of s. 49 of the Registration Act. Consequently, even an unregistered agreement creates a right in favour of the buyer and constitutes a "transfer" of the old property u/s 2(47) for purposes of determining whether the purchase of the new property is within one year of the date of "transfer" of the old property

Thus, a right in respect of the capital asset (old residential property in question) has been transferred by the assessee in favour of the vendee/transferee on 16.09.2011 and, therefore, since purchase of the new property on 04.10.2010 which fact has been disputed by the AO/Ld. CIT(A) the purchase of the property is well within one year from the date of transfer as per sec. 2(47) of the Act, therefore, we allow the appeal of the assesse

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 29, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 13, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus capital gains from penny stocks: Reliance by AO on statements recorded by the Investigation Wing to conclude that the capital gains are bogus without giving an opportunity of cross examination is a complete violation of principles of natural justice as held in CCE Vs Andaman Timber Industries 127 DTR 241(SC). The AO has not controverted the evidence of purchase bills, payment of consideration through bank, DEMAT account, allotment of amalgamated shares, sale of shares through stock exchange at prevailing price, payment of STT etc

The Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to controvert the fact duly established by the supporting evidence of purchase bills, payment of consideration through bank, dematerialization of shares in the DEMAT account, allotment of the shares amalgamated new entity in lieu of the earlier two companies of equal number of shares. Sale of shares from the DEMAT account through stock exchange and at the prevailing price as on the date of sale and further payment of STT on the transaction of sale has been duly established. In absence of any contrary fact, the mere reliance by the Assessing Officer on the report of Investigation Wing, Kolkata is not sufficient to establish the fact that the transaction is bogus.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 29, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 8, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Though s. 206C does not impose any limitation period for the AO to hold the assessee to be in default for collection of tax at source, a reasonable time limit of four years has to be read into the statute. Orders passed after this period are beyond the limitation and are void. The fact that the Dept became aware of the default later is irrelevant. The fact that the assessee admitted his liability is also irrelevant

There is no dispute that Section 206C or any other provisions of the Income Tax Act do not provide any limitation for passing the order by the Assessing Officer U/s 206C(6)/206C(7) of the Act holding the assessee in default due to failure to collect tax at source. However, non-providing the limitation in the statute would not confer the jurisdiction/powers to the Assessing Officer to pass order U/s 206C at any point of time disregarding the amount of time lapse from such default of collection of tax at source

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 30, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 7, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 272A(1)(c) Penalty: The argument that penalty u/s 272A(1)(c) can be levied only for non-compliance of s. 131(1) and not s. 131(IA) is not correct because s. 131(1A) has to be read with s. 131(1). On facts, the penalty is justified because the conduct of the assessee is not bona fide. There is deliberate and complete defiance to the summons issued u/s 131(1A)

So far as the arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee that there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not submitting the details as called for by the ADIT (Investigation) is concerned, we find from the record that there was a deliberate defiance on the part of the assessee for non- submission of the same under the pretext that some of the details are available in the records of the Income Tax Department or some of the details are available in the Website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs

Read more ›