Home › › Page 2

Search Results For: Salil Kapoor

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 3, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 17, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2000-01 to 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 43(1) Explanation 10: The law laid down in PJ Chemicals 210 ITR 830 (SC) that only a subsidy or grant given to offset the cost of an asset can be reduced from the "actual cost" of the asset and not a general subsidy continues to hold good even after the insertion of Explanation 10 to s. 43(1). A subsidy/ grant from a foreign sovereign Country does not fall within Expl 10 because the foreign Country is not a "person" as defined in s. 2(31)

We have also gone through the provisions of Section 43(1) as well as Explanation 10 thereof. We noted that Section 43(1) defines the actual cost to mean the actual cost of the assets of the assessee reduced by that portion of the cost thereof, if any, as has been met directly or indirectly by other person or authority. In the impugned case, we noted that what the ICICI has financed by way of conditional grant to the assessee is the amount received from USA under the project grant agreement for the Program for Acceleration of Commercial Energy Research. Now the question arises whether USA can be regarded to be a person or authority. In our view, this provision cannot be read without Explanation 10. From the reading of the said explanation, it is explicitly clear that if a portion of a cost of an asset acquired by the assessee has been met directly or indirectly by Central Government or State Government or any authority established under any law or by any other person in the form of a subsidy or a grant or reimbursement, said subsidy grant or reimbursement as is relatable to the asset shall be reduced out of the actual cost of the assessee to the assessee. USA is a sovereign and cannot be Central Government or State Government or any authority established by any law in India

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 30, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 12, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) penalty cannot be levied in a case where the assessee has relied on legal opinion of a professional and there is no tax impact i.e. the loss disallowed in year one is allowed set-off in a later year

The Tribunal noted that the respondent had claimed the set off of its business income of Rs. 1.85 crores against the brought forward business losses of the earlier years on the basis of a legal opinion received from a leading firm of Chartered Accountants. The Tribunal found nothing clandestine in the manner in which the opinion was sought. In any event, even our attention was not invited to anything which suggests any malafides either in the obtaining of the opinion or otherwise. Further, the loss was allowed to be carried forward in the assessment year, namely, assessment year 2002-2003

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 29, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 8, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): While expenditure for purchase of a capital asset is capital expenditure, guarantee commission to acquire the asset on installment terms is revenue expenditure

Expenditure incurred for the purchase of the machinery was undoutedly capital expenditure; for it brought in an asset of enduring advantage. But the guarantee commission stands on a different footing. By itself, it does not bring into existence any asset of an enduring nature; nor did it bring in any other advantage of an enduring benefit. The acquisition of the machinery on installment terms was only a business exigency

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 2, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 9, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IB: Fact that the AO allowed s. 80-IB deduction in the year of setting up does not disentitle him from examining the eligibility in subsequent years. As per the CBDT’s low tax effect circular, the tax effect has to be seen each year irrespective of the fact that a common issue arises over several years

An assessee must fulfill each of the conditions stipulated in Section 80-IB in each of the years in which the deduction thereunder is sought. The Assessing Officer would be entitled to ascertain in each of the assessment years whether or not the conditions of Section 80-IB remained fulfilled. In other words, even where an assessee is found to have fulfilled all the conditions of Section 80-IB in the initial assessment year and has on account thereof been granted the deduction thereunder, an Assessing Officer assessing the assessee’s income in subsequent years would be entitled to ascertain whether in that assessment year the conditions in Section 80-IB remained fulfilled or not. If not, he is bound to deny the deduction

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 5, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 20, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Pricing: The TPO is required to be consistent in matters relating to selection of comparables. If a comparable has been included or rejected in an earlier year, he is not entitled to take a different view in a later year if there is no change in circumstances

Without any proper reason or change in the functionality and financial data, it cannot be held that these companies are to be excluded/included (as prayed for herein above), in the intermediary period of the assessment year under consideration. The TPO has to bring some material on record to show as to why these comparables which were excluded/included (as prayed for herein above) in the earlier year and also in succeeding year, cannot be excluded/included in the year under consideration

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: June 2, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 30/ 37(1): Expenditure on repairs of rented premises, even if huge and accumulated, are allowable as revenue expenditure. Fact that CIT(A) admitted additional evidence is no justification for seeking a set aside to the AO if the CIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO: Savarana Spinning mills Limited 293 ITR 201 (SC) distinguished

The contention of the revenue that Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in CIT vs. M/s. Saravana Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. 293 ITR 201 pleading that the most of the expenditure are not in the nature of current repair expenditure but accumulated repairs so even though the expenditure is revenue in nature, same is not allowable. We find that the reliance on this decision by the revenue is misplaced as in that case, Hon’ble Supreme Court was concerned about the modernisation and replacement expenses on the textile mill and it was held that it was not allowable. In the present case, the issue is not of repairs on plant and machinery but related to expenditure on building, further the building is also not owned by the assessee but is a rented premises. The expenditure would be dealt with by the provision of section 30. On reading of the above section, the accumulated repairs are not allowed when the assessee owns building and therefore as a tenant cost of repairs to the premises is allowable whether they are accumulated or current

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 19, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) vs. 271AAA: Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on income disclosed in a search instead of u/s 271AAA is not sustainable

The penalty in this case, if at all leviable, it should have been levied under section 271AAA (1) and not u/s 271(1)(c) as has categorically been provided in sub-section (3) of section 271AAA. Intention of the legislative in incorporating the provisions contained u/s 271AA effective during the period 1st June, 2007 to 1st July, 2012 is to provide general amnesty in search and seizure cases, and the case of the assessee undisputedly falls u/s 271AAA and cannot be dealt with u/s 271(1)(c) by any stretch of imagination even

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: May 16, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Non-furnishing by the AO of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment results in violation of the law laid down in GKN Driveshaft 259 ITR 19 (SC) & renders the reopening void

Despite repeated letters requesting to provide copy of the reasons recorded or the grounds on which the assessment was reopened, no such reasons were provided to the assessee. We find that the DR could not substantiate whether any reasons were provided by the Assessing Officer to the assessee and merely relying on the fact that general practice was followed in Department of supplying reasons, it cannot be presumed that reasons were supplied in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has not complied with the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) limited Vs. CIT (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) providing reasons for reassessment within a reasonable time, and therefore respectfully following the decisions cited above, the reassessment completed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act cannot be sustained in the case of the assessee and quashed

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 24, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 6, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Purchases: Purchases cannot be treated as bogus is (i) assessee has furnished quantitative reconciliation, (ii) Gross Profit rate is comparable to earlier & subsequent years, (iii) suppliers are income-tax assessees and their sales have not been treated as bogus by their AOs, (iv) payments are by account payee cheques and other documentary evidences are available

Another crucial fact which commands consideration is, all the suppliers are income tax assessees and as per the evidence produced on record they have disclosed these sale transactions in the books of account as well as return filed by them. However, no adverse inference has been drawn in respect of sales made by them by concerned Assessing Officers to the effect that they are not genuine parties or they are providing accommodation bills only. At least, no such fact is forthcoming from assessment order nor the department has filed any paper book before us to demonstrate that there is any adverse material in the possession of the Department to establish that concerned suppliers are non-genuine and are providing accommodation bills. In contrast, enough documentary evidences by way of purchase bills, sales bills, ledger copies of suppliers, etc., along with the fact that payments were made through cheque has been brought on record by assessee to demonstrate that purchases made from the concerned suppliers are genuine

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 7, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 22, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Income-tax provisions are highly complicated and it is difficult for a layman to understand the same. Even seasoned tax professionals have difficulty in comprehending these provisions. Making a claim for deduction u/s S.80 IA which has numerous conditions is a complicated affair & cannot attract penalty

The provisions under the Income Tax Act are highly complicated and its different for a layman to understand the same. Even seasoned tax professionals have difficulty in comprehending these provisions. Making a claim for deduction under the provisions of S.80 IA of the Act which has numerous The provisions under the Income Tax Act are highly complicated and its different for a layman to understand the same. Even seasoned tax professionals have difficulty in comprehending these provisions. Making a claim for deduction under the provisions of S.80 IA of the Act which has numerous conditions attached, is a complicated affair. It is another matter that the assessing authorities have found that the claim is not admissible. Under these circumstances we hold that it cannot be said that this is a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

Read more ›