Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Geofin Investment (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

Geofin Investment (P) Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 12, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (geofin_non_cited_cases.pdf)


Tribunal entitled to do “own research” & rely on non-cited cases

The assessee’s appeal on disallowance made on account of short term capital loss and long term capital loss was decided by the Tribunal by relying on a decision of the Mumbai Bench in Macintosh Finance Estates Ltd vs ACIT which had not been cited by either party to the appeal. The assessee filed a MA u/s 254(2) claiming that reliance on a non-cited judgement was an apparent mistake which was dismissed by the Tribunal. On a Writ Petition filed by the assessee, HELD dismissing the Petition:

Reliance and reference to reasons stated in another decision cannot be regarded as a mistake apparent from the record. It is not unusual or abnormal for Judges or adjudicators to refer and rely upon judgments/decisions after making their own research.

For a contrary view see Inventure Growth and Securities vs. ITAT 324 ITR 319 (Bom), Naresh K. Pahuja vs. ITO 224 CTR 284 (Bom) & the cases cited therein

Related Posts:

  • Snowtex Investment Limited vs. PCIT (Supreme Court) The amendment which was brought by Parliament to the Explanation to Section 73 by the Finance (No 2) Act 2014 was with effect from 1 April 2015. In its legislative wisdom, the Parliament amended Section 43(5) with effect from 1 April 2006 in relation to the business of trading in…
  • The Peerless General Finance And Investment Co Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court) It is the true nature and quality of the receipt and not the head under which it is entered in the account books that would prove decisive. If a receipt is a trading receipt, the fact that it is not so shown in the account books of the assessee would…
  • DCIT vs. Comet Investment Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) The broker, through whom the assessee carried on share transactions, were also not imposed any penalty. No co-relation between the assessee on the one hand and the other parties on the other hand has been brought on record to co-relate that the parties to whom the alleged profits or loss…
  • Bently Nevada LLC vs. ITO (Delhi High Court) The Court accordingly finds that in the present case the impugned withholding certificate which directs TDS to be deducted at 5% on the payments made by the Indian entities to the Petitioner is unsustainable in law, inasmuch as it is not based on valid reasons and is contrary to the…
  • PCIT vs. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) The transactions in question were clearly sham and make-believe with excellent paper work to camouflage their bogus nature. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is clearly superficial and adopts a perfunctory approach and ignores evidence and material referred to in the assessment order. The reasoning given is contrary to…
  • Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) If the nature of services rendered have a proximate nexus with the extraction of production of mineral oils, it would be outside the ambit of the definition of FTS. In the instant case, since the nature of services rendered by the Petitioner gets excluded from the definition of “FTS”, in…

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd (Delhi High Court) 

    Non-compete compensation paid to an employee for an indefinite period is business expenditure and not capital expenditure as no capital asset or benefit of enduring benefit came into existence. While the lenght of the period of the covenant is important, it is not decisive. What is more important is…
  2. Mahendra D. Jain vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) 

    Where the assessee is carrying on an illegal activity which is treated as a business, any loss arising in such business as a result of confiscation by the authorities is an allowable loss. However, where the assessee is carrying on a lawful business, any loss arising as a result…
  3. Aztec Software vs. ACIT (Karnataka High Court) 

    In admitting the appeal filed under section 260A against the judgement of the 5 Member Special Bench of the Tribunal in Aztec Software vs. ACIT 294 ITR (AT) 32 / 107 ITD 41, the High Court has granted stay of “the operation and all further proceedings” of the said…
  4. ITO vs. Dhan Sai Srivas (Chhattisgarh High Court) 

    It could not be the intention of the legislature that the benefit of s. 10 (10C) should be restricted in the case of employees who retired before 1.4.2004 only to the sum actually received while employees who retired subsequently will get the benefit also in respect of amounts payable…
  5. Danny Denzongpa vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

    Once the CIT is vested with the power of condonation of delay, then it is incumbent upon the CIT to take into consideration the reasons mentioned by the assessee seeking condonation of delay. In matters of this kind, wherein a benefit is sought to be given to an assessee…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*