Home › › Page 3

Search Results For: ITAT Delhi

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 19, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 4, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A Rule 8D disallowance of shares held as stock-in-trade: Though Maxopp Investment 402 ITR 640 (SC) rejects the theory of dominant purpose in making investment, it makes a clear distinction between dividend earned on shares acquired for controlling interest & shares purchased as stock-in-trade. In the case of the latter, it is only by a quirk of fate that the shares were held by the assessee when the dividend was declared. Accordingly, s. 14A & Rule 8D do not apply to shares held as stock-in-trade

Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, while rejecting the theory of dominant purpose in making investment in shares-whether it was to acquire and retain controlling interest in the other company or to make profits out of the trading activity in such shares – clearly made a clear distinction between the dividend earned in respect of the shares which were acquired by the assessee in their exercise to acquire and retain the controlling interest in the investee company, and the shares that were purchased for the purpose of liquidating those shares whenever the share price goes up, in order to earn profits. It is, therefore, clear that though not the dominant purpose of acquiring the shares is a relevant for the purpose of invoking the provisions under section 14 A of the Act, the shares held as stock in trade stand on a different pedestal in relation to the shares that were acquired with an intention to acquire and retain the controlling interest in the investee company

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 3, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 4, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Section 54F is a beneficial provision and should be liberally interpreted. An assessee who has purchased a house property is entitled to exemption u/s 54F despite the fact that construction activities of the new house has started before the date of sale of the original asset (Bharti Mishra 265 CTR 374 (Del) & Kuldeep Singh 270 CTR 561 (Del) followed)

In J. R. Suhramanya Bhat (supra). Karnataka High Court noticed language of Section 54 which stipulated that the assessee should within one year from the dale of transfer purchase, or within a period of two years thereafter, construct a residential house to avail of concession under the said Section. The contention of the Revenue that construction of the new building had commenced earlier to the sale of the original asset, it was observed, cannot bar or prevent the assessee from taking benefit of Section 54 II was immaterial when the construction commenced, the sole and important consideration as per the Section was that the construction should he completed within the specified period

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 15, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 29, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-14, 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11UA: Law on how to determine the "FMV" (Fair Market Value) of shares issued by a closely held company explained. The fact that the company is loss-making does not mean that shares cannot be allotted at premium. The DCF method is a recognised method though it is not an exact science & can never be done with arithmetic precision. The fact that future projections of various factors made by applying hindsight view cannot be matched with actual performance does not mean that the DCF method is not correct

Rule 11UA will apply only if option is exercised in sub-clause (i), but if the assessee has been able to substantiate the fair market value in terms of sub-clause (ii), then valuation done by the assessee cannot be rejected simply on the ground that it does not stand the test of method provided in 11U and 11UA. Here the assessee has been able to show that the aggregate consideration received and the shares which were issued does not exceed FMV and has demonstrated the value as contemplated in Explanation (a) and therefore, the working of the assessee as per Explanation (a) sub clause (ii) has to be accepted. Section 56(2)(viib) provides for fair market value to be opted whichever is higher either under sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii). Since the working of FMV so substantiated by assessee company as per sub-clause (ii) is higher than value prescribed u/s 11UA, then same should be adopted for the purpose of valuation of the shares of the assessee company

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: February 22, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 27, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 28(iv)/ 56(2)(viia)/ 47(vii): S. 56(2)(viia) is an anti-abuse provision which applies only to cases of bogus capital building and money laundering. It does not apply to an amalgamation where shares are allotted at alleged undervaluation. Increase in general reserves due to recording of assets of amalgamating company at FMV not give rise to any real income to the assessee. It is capital in nature. Amendment to s. 47(vii) by FA 2012 is clarificatory & retrospective

The question, therefore, before us is, Whether the provisions of section 47(vii) as amended by Finance Act 2012 is retrospective in nature ? It is a fact that existing provision of section 47(vii) was not possible to comply with when amalgamating company is the 100% subsidiary of the amalgamated company. This is, in fact, was a defect in Section 47(vii) prior to the amendment. The amendment was made to cure this defect. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee above squarely apply to this case as the provisions of section 47(vii) prior to the amendment if read clause-(a) thereof, was unworkable and could not have applied in case, where amalgamating company is the owner of 100% shares of the amalgamating company

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: November 26, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 22, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(38) Bogus LTCG from Penny Stocks: Capital gains cannot be treated as bogus solely on the basis that the price of the shares has risen manifold and the reason for astronomical rise is not related to any fundamentals of market. If the transactions are duly proved by trading from stock exchange and the documentation is proper, the gains cannot be assessed as unexplained credit or as unexplained money

Nowhere it has been found that assessee was in any manner found to be beneficiary of any accommodation entry under any inquiry or investigation. Once all these transactions are duly proved by trading from stock exchange, then to hold the sale of shares as unexplained credit or as unexplained money cannot be upheld

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 12, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 14, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: In the case of a private company, Onus is on assessee to prove identity, creditworthiness of subscribers and most importantly genuineness of transactions. Even if AO does not make inquiry, CIT(A) should do so. Relief cannot be given merely on basis of Ration Card, Share Application forms, Voter ID etc of the subscribers

Under Section 68 onus is upon assessee to prove three ingredients, i.e., identity and creditworthiness of credit entries. As to how onus can be discharged would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. It is expected of both sides – assessee and Ld.AO, to adopt reasonable approach. Assessee before us is a private limited company. It cannot issue shares in manner in which a public limited company does. It generally depend on persons known to its directors or shareholders directly or indirectly to buy its shares. Once monies are received and shares are issued, it is not as if share-subscribers and assessee lose touch with each other and become incommunicado. Onus thus is upon assessee to prove identity, creditworthiness of subscribers and most importantly genuineness of transactions under section 68

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 12, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 22, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Purchases: The fact that the vendors are not available at the given address is not sufficient to treat the purchases as bogus if the assessee has discharged primary onus and substantiated the purchases through documentary evidence and payment is made through banking channels. None of these documents have been proved to be false or untrue and thus the initial burden cast on the assessee was duly discharged

It is an admitted fact that during the course of search nothing adverse was found from the premises of the assessee regarding the purchases made from the four parties concerned. Only during post search enquiry it was found that those four parties are not available at the given address. However, it is a fact that the payments have been made through banking channel and the assessee had substantiated the purchases by providing documents such as purchase invoices, copy of the ledger accounts, evidences for having made payments through banking channels, C Form issued to the suppliers, copy of VAT return duly reflecting the said purchases, etc

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 10, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194-IA TDS: The exemption of Rs. 50 lakh in s. 194-IA(2) is applicable w.r.t. the amount related to each transferee and not with reference to the amount as per sale deed. Each transferee is a separate income tax entity and the law has to be applied with reference to each transferee as an individual transferee / person

Each transferee is a separate income tax entity therefore, the law has to be applied with reference to each transferee as an individual transferee / person. It is also noted that Section 194-IA was introduced by Finance Act, 2013 effective from 1.6.2013. It is also noted from the Memorandum explaining the provisions brought out alongwith the Finance Bill wherein it was stated that “in order to reduce the compliance burden on the small tax payers, it is further proposed that no deduction of tax under this provision shall be made where the total amount of consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than fifty lakhs rupees.”

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 26, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 28, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Capital gains: Reliance by the AO on statements of third parties without giving the assessee an opportunity of cross-examination is a gross failure of the principles of natural justice and renders the assessment order a nullity

Not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 5, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 9, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(38)/68 Bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks: It cannot be inferred that the assessee has manipulated the share price merely because it moved up sharply. The AO has to produce material/evidence to show that the assessee/ brokers did price rigging/manipulation of shares. The AO must also show that the relevant evidence produced by the assessee in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statement, bank account etc to prove the genuineness of the transactions are false or fictitious or bogus (All judgements considered)

We note that in the absence of material/evidence the allegations that the assessee/brokers got involved in price rigging/manipulation of shares must therefore also fail. At the cost of repetition, we note that the assessee had furnished all relevant evidence in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statement and bank account to prove the genuineness of the transactions relevant to the purchase and sale of shares resulting in long term capital gain. These evidences were neither found by the AO nor by the ld. CIT(A) to be false or fictitious or bogus. The facts of the case and the evidence in support of the evidence clearly support the claim of the assessee that the transactions of the assessee were genuine and the authorities below was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee that income from LTCG is exempted u/s 10(38)

Read more ›