Home › Archive for Tribunal › Page 20
Category: Tribunal

Archive for the ‘Tribunal’ Category

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 27, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 3, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9/ 195(1) TDS: Law on whether commision paid to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India accrues in India and whether the assessee is liable to deduct TDS thereon explained (All judgements referred)

Section 195 of the Act has to be read alongwith the charging Section 4,5 and 9 of the Act. One should not read Section 195 of the Act to mean that the moment there is a remittance, the obligation to deduct tax automatically arises. Section 195 of the Act clearly provides that unless the income is chargeable to lax in India, there is no obligation to withhold tax. In order to determine whether the income could be deemed to accrue or arise in India, section 9 of the Act is the basis

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 16, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 3, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(42C)/ 50B: A transaction by which an undertaking is transferred in consideration of the allottment of shares is an "exchange" and not a "sale". The fact that the agreement refers to the parties as "seller" and "purchaser" is irrelevant. S. 2(42C)/ 50B apply only to "sale" and not to "exchange". Entire law on "estoppel" explained. As there is no estoppel against a statute, an assessee is entitled to raise the claim regarding non-taxability at any stage of the proceedings

In the present case the consideration was not money but equity shares and debentures and hence the transaction was not a “Sale” but an “Exchange” and consequently, the provisions of Section 50B of the I.T. Act, are not attracted. In the case of CIT vs. Bharat Bijlee Ltd. (365 ITR 258) where an undertaking was transferred under a Scheme of Arrangement to a company which allotted preference shares and bonds as consideration to the Transferor company. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Motor & General Stores (P) Ltd. (66 ITR 692), the jurisdictional High Court held that the provisions of section 50B were inapplicable to the transaction

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 27, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 30, 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: 31000% increase in value of shares over 2 years is highly suspicious but cannot take the place of evidence. The addition cannot be made based on generalizations. Evidence collected from third parties cannot be used against the assessee without giving him a copy & an opportunity to rebut the same

The AO further relies on the shop increase of 31000% of the value of shares over the period of 2 years. Though this is highly suspicious, it cannot take the place of evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that suspicion however strong cannot be the basis for making an addition. The evidence produced by the assessee listed above proves his case and the AO could not controvert the same by bringing on record any evidence. The evidence said to have been collected by the DIT (INV.), Kolkata and the report is not produced before this Bench

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 25, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 27, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: If the AO has remained silent with folded hands and has not made any independent inquiry from the concerned AO of share holder company and has not controverted the evidence produced by the assessee, that itself is sufficient to knock off the addition made. The fact that there is no personal appearance from director of said cash creditor (share holder) does not mean that an adverse inference u/s 68 can be drawn by the AO without the AO discharging the secondary burden lying upon him (All imp judgements referred)

All the relevant and necessary documents required to establish the subject transaction of share capital received are brought on records before AO and Ld CIT(A) and have totally remained uncontroverted. Specially the fact of positive response made by share holder in response to enquiry made u/s 131 and confirmation of subject investment therein by share holder to AO clinches the issue in favor of assessee. Moreover the share holder company having handsome net worth and assessed u/s 153C/153A for subject period also supports assessee’s case. Further AO has remained sited with folded hands and has not made any independent enquiry from concerned AO of share holder company which itself is sufficient to knock off the addition made

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 20, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 27, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Condonation of delay (92 days): The AO was negligent in filing the remand report before the CIT(A). The same attitude has continued at the stage of filing appeal to the ITAT. The excuse that the appeal was not filed due to the AO being busy with time barring assessment is not acceptable. The AO deliberately overlooked the impugned order and did not file appeal before the Tribunal within the period of limitation. Even the authorization by Pr. CIT to file the appeal has been granted after the period of limitation. Hence sufficient cause is not shown

The same conduct of the AO continued even after passing of the impugned appellate order because the appellate order was kept pending without any action and no appeal has been filed by the Department within the period of limitation. It is simply stated in the application for condonation of delay that due to time barring assessment, the impugned order was overlooked and got barred by limitation. However, it is a fact that AO was aware that departmental appeal would be meritless. It is, therefore, clear that the AO deliberately overlooked the impugned order and did not file appeal before the Tribunal within the period of limitation. Even the authorization by Ld. Pr. CIT to file the appeal have been granted after the period of limitation to file the appeal on 07.06.2016. Therefore, no sufficient cause has been shown to explain the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal beyond the period of limitation

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 21, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 23, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14, 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 90(2) DTAA: The failure to submit a 'Tax Residency Certificate' (TRC) as required by s.90(4) is not a bar to the grant of benefits under the DTAA. However, the assessee is required to produce reasonable evidence of the entitlement of the foreign entity to benefits under the DTAA

Section 90(4), in the absence of a non-obstante clause, cannot be read as a limitation to the treaty superiority under Section 90(2), we are of the considered view that an eligible assessee cannot be declined the treaty protection under section 90(2) on the ground that the said assessee has not been able to furnish a Tax Residency Certificate in the prescribed form. De hors the statutory provision under Section 90(4), the assessee has to satisfy his eligibility for treaty protection nevertheless and the onus of satisfying the same by any other mode, i.e. other than a TRC, appears to be much more demanding than furnishing of a TRC. To be entitled for Indo US tax treaty benefits in India, a foreign enterprise has to establish that it is a resident of the other contracting state, i.e. the United States

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 20, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 23, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 139(5): There is no bar / restriction that an assessee cannot file a revised return of income after issuance of notice u/s 143(2). A revised return of income can be filed even in course of the assessment proceedings provided the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) is available. The Departmental Authorities are not expected to deny assessee’s legitimate claim by raising technical objection

There is no bar / restriction in the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act that the assessee cannot file a revised return of income after issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. It is trite law, the assessee can file a revised return of income even in course of the assessment proceedings, provided, the time limit prescribed under section 139(5) of the Act is available. That being the case, the revised return of income filed by the assessee under section 139(5) of the Act cannot be held as invalid

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 25, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 21, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
'On Money': The fact that the assessee has sold flats at an undervaluation does not mean that he has understated the consideration and earned undisclosed 'on money'. The mere presumption that excess price could have been charged is not a ground for coming to the conclusion that the assessee did charge a higher price. The burden of proving such understatement or concealment is on the Revenue (All important judgements considered)

The case law relied by Assessing Officer in ITO Vs Diamond Investment and Properties ITA No. 5537/M/2009 is not applicable on the facts of the present case. In case of Diamond Investment and Properties (supra), the flats were sold to the related parties was much lower than the price charged from the other parties. However, there is no allegation of related parties’ transaction in the present case. The coordinate bench of Tribunal Neelkamal Realtor & Erectors India (P0 Ltd (2013) 38 taxmann.com 195 held that when the assessee offered an explanation for charging lower price in respect of some of flats sold by it and Assessing Officer without controverting such explanation made addition to income of assessee by applying rate of another flat sold by it, Assessing Officer was not justified in his action. Similar view was taken by another bench of Tribunal in ACIT Vs Rustom Soil Sethna

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 19, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 20, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 159/ 163/ 176: While a notice/ order on a dead person/ wound-up company is a nullity, this is subject to the condition that the department is made aware of the death/ winding-up. If the legal representative, either voluntarily or in response to a notice issued against the deceased but served upon his agent, allows the assessment proceedings to continue against the deceased/ wound-up company without any objection and lets the AO make an assessment order, it would not be open for him to take a plea at the appellate stage, as a last resort or as an afterthought, that the proceedings taken and the assessment order made against the deceased/ wound-up company are nullity. In such cases, the assessment is liable to be set-aside for a fresh assessment in accordance with law instead of its annulment

In the instant case before us, we have observed that compliance of the assessment proceeding before the Assessing Officer has been made from time to time by the persons authorized in this behalf and proceedings have not been challenged due to lack of jurisdiction. According to the available records, the validity of the jurisdiction has been challenged for first time before the Ld. DRP. In view of the above circumstances, following the finding of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sumantbhai C Munshaw (1981) 128 ITR 142 the assessment order should not be nullified

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 14, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share premium: Addition cannot be made on the ground that the directors of the share subscribers did not turn up before the AO. The assessee can be required to prove only such facts which are in his knowledge. Creditworthiness of the subscriber cannot be disputed by the AO of the assessee but by the AO of the subscriber. If the assessee has discharged its onus to prove identity, creditworthiness & genuineness of the share applicants, the onus shifts to AO to disprove the documents furnished by assessee. In absence of any investigation, much less gathering of evidence by the AO, an addition cannot be sustained merely based on inferences drawn by circumstance (all judgements considered)

To sum up section 68 of the Act provides that if any sum found credited in the year in respect of which the assessee fails to explain the nature and source shall be assessed as its undisclosed income. In the facts of the present case, both the nature & source of the share application received was fully explained by the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants. The PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments were placed on AO’s record. Accordingly all the three conditions as required u/s. 68 of the Act i.e. the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was placed before the AO and the onus shifted to AO to disprove the materials placed before him. Without doing so, the addition made by the AO is based on conjectures and surmises cannot be justified

Read more ›