Home › › Page 76

Search Results For: Domestic Tax

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: January 16, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 6, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68: Even if the premium at which the shares are issued defies commercial prudence, the receipt cannot be assessed as "unexplained credit" if the identity of the payer, genuineness of the transaction and capacity of the subscriber are not disputed. Interest earned on short-term fixed deposits is assessable as "profits and gains of business" and not as "income from other sources"

Mr.Chhotaray the learned counsel for the Revenue states that the impugned order itself holds that share premium of Rs.490/per share defies all commercial prudence. Therefore it has to be considered to be cash credit. We find that the Tribunal has examined the case of the Revenue on the parameters of Section 68 of the Act and found on facts that it is not so hit. Therefore, Section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked. The Revenue has not been able to show in any manner the factual finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse in any manner

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 5, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 3, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Failure by the AO to specify in the s. 274 notice whether the penalty is being initiated for 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' or for 'concealment of income' is fatal. It reflects non-application of mind and renders the levy of penalty invalid (Manjunatha Cotton 359 ITR 565 (Kar) followed)

The above submission on the part of the Revenue is in the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Pai v/s. CIT 292 ITR 11 [relied upon in Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra)] – wherein it is observed that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, carry different meanings/ connotations. Therefore, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer with regard to only one of the two breaches mentioned under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for initiation of penalty proceedings will not warrant/ permit penalty being imposed for the other breach. This is more so, as an Assessee would respond to the ground on which the penalty has been initiated/notice issued. It must, therefore, follow that the order imposing penalty has to be made only on the ground of which the penalty proceedings has been initiated, and it cannot be on a fresh ground of which the Assessee has no notice

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: January 30, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 3, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 28/29: There is a distiction between "setting up of business" and "commencement of business". All expenditure after "setting up" is deductible business expenditure even if the business has not commenced. A business is "set up" when steps are taken to recruit employees and take premises etc

A similar issue viz. distinction between setting up of business and commencement of business had come up for consideration before this Court in Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1954 Vol. 26 ITR Page 151. This Court had held that business is said to have been set up when it is established and ready to be commence. However, there may be an interval between a business which is set up and a business which is commenced. However, all expenses incurred during the interregnum between setting up of business and commencement of business would be permissible deductions

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 13, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 3, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 234C: Though levy of interest for deferment of advance-tax is mandatory and cause & justification for the deferment are irrelevant, the same is not leviable if the income was not predictable and the assessee could not have anticipated its receipt e.g. the receipt of a gift

The liability to pay advance tax enshrined under the Act is based on the principle of ‘pay as you earn’, as has been aptly noted by the Delhi High Court in the case of Bill and Peggy Marketing India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, 350 ITR 465 (Del). Section 234C of the Act prescribes that the advance tax is payable in installments on the dates falling within financial year itself. Any failure or shortfall in payment of such installments attracts interest under section 234C of the Act. In the present case, the assessee has been charged interest under section 234C of the Act primarily on the ground that the requisite installments were not paid on the specified dates of 15/9/2011 and 15/12/2011. The assessee resists the levy on the ground that the income which has prompted the Revenue to levy interest was not received by the assessee on such specified dates, but it was received on 17/12/2011. Ostensibly, the income in question is by way of gifts received, which has been received by the assessee after the date of instalments due on 15/9/2011 and 15/12/2011. Quite clearly, assessee could not have anticipated the receipt or accrual of such income before the event, and such event has taken place after the due dates of instalments

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 18, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 31, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus capital gains: A transaction cannot be treated as fraudulent if the assessee has furnished documentary proof and proved the identity of the purchasers and no discrepancy is found. The AO has to exercise his powers u/s 131 & 133(6) to verify the genuineness of the claim and cannot proceed on surmises

The assessee has adduced the documentary evidences in support of the transaction in question. The identity of the purchasers of the shares was established as it was borne on the record of the Income Tax Department. The purchasers have PAN card as well. Turning to the shares which were sold by the appellant as per its version, there is no evidence or material to even suggest, as pointed out as on behalf of the assessee, that the cheques directly or indirectly emanated from the assessee so that it could be said that the assessee’s own money was brought back in the guise of sale proceeds of the shares. Though, the purchasers of the shares could not be examined by the AO, since they were existing on the file of the Income Tax Department and their Income Tax details were made available to the AO, it was equally the duty of the AO to have taken steps to verify their assessment records and if necessary to also have them examined by the respective AOs having jurisdiction over them which has not been done by him

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(37) Capital Gains: Meaning of "compulsory acquisition" under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 explained. The fact that the assessee entered into a settlement with the Collector regarding the compensation amount does not mean that the acquisition was not "compulsory" if the prescribed procedure was followed. Info Park Kerala vs. ACIT (2008) 4 KLT 782 overruled

It goes without saying that had steps not been taken by the Government under Sections 4 & 6 followed by award under Section 9 of the LA Act, the appellant would not have agreed to divest the land belonging to him to Techno Park. He was compelled to do so because of the compulsory acquisition and to avoid litigation entered into negotiations and settled the final compensation. Merely because the compensation amount is agreed upon would not change the character of acquisition from that of compulsory acquisition to the voluntary sale. It may be mentioned that this is now the procedure which is laid down even under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as per which the Collector can pass rehabilitation and resettlement award with the consent of the parties/land owners. Nonetheless, the character of acquisition remains compulsory

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 27, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07, 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(38): If the AO has accepted the claim for exemption for long-term capital gains and conceded that the assessee is an "investor", he cannot change his stand and treat the assessee as a "trader" in respect of the claim of short-term capital gains alone

The AO having accepted the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act for long term capital gains of the assessee had conceded the claim of assessee to be an investor and the AO cannot take a different stand by treating the assessee as a trader in respect of short term capital gains alone

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 18, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus purchases: As a direct one to one relationship/nexus between the purchases and sales has not been established by the assessee, the purchases have to be treated as bogus and 12% of the purchase cost is assessable as profits (law on the subject noted)

It is also a settled legal proposition that if no evidence is given by the party on whom the burden is cast, the issue must be found against him. Therefore, onus is always on a person who asserts a proposition or fact, which is not self evident, The onus, as a determining factor of the whole case can only arise if the Tribunal, which is vested with the authority to determine, finally all questions of fact, finds the evidence pro & con, so evenly balanced that it can come to no conclusion, then, the onus will determine the matter

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: January 17, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2002-03, 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 9(1)(i)/ 9(1)(vi)/ 9(1)(vii)/ 40(a)(i): Law on whether payment by the assessee to non-resident parties for “call transmission services through dedicated bandwidth” is assessable as income accruing in India, royalty or fees for technical services and whether a disallowance can be made for failure to deduct TDS explained

In the instant case also, the undersea cable for providing dedicated bandwidth to the assessee was installed beyond the territory of India and no operations were carried out by the non-resident party M/s Kick Communication in India. It was responsible for restoring connectivity and Managing faults in connectivity etc in respect of data transmitted through undersea cable only. Similarly, the operations carried out by M/s. IGTL Solutions are also in USA and not in India. Since operations by both the non-resident parties are carried out beyond the territory of India, we thus hold that section 9(1)(i) is of the Act is not attracted in case of above two non-resident parties

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: January 12, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 28, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(1)/ Rule 34(5)(c): The Tribunal is mandated to pass orders within 90 days of the hearing. Delay is not justified on the ground that 'administrative clearance' was obtained. The aggrieved party is entitled to seek recall of such an order

The order of the Tribunal while rejecting the rectification application does not dispute the fact that the order dated 3rd February, 2016 passed under Section 254(1) of the Act was passed beyond the period of 90 days from the date of conclusion of its hearing on 22nd September, 2015. However, it records that administrative clearance had been taken to pass such an order beyond the period of 90 days. We are at a loss to understand what is meant by ‘administrative clearance’ and the basis for the same. Besides when, how and from whom the administrative clearance was received, are all questions still at large

Read more ›