Home ›

Search Results For: Mahendra Gargieya

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
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
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 ›