Search Results For: Bhavnesh Saini (JM)


COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 24, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 29, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: 2013-2014
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(22)(e) is a deeming provision & should be construed strictly. The section uses the expression "by way of advances or loans" which shows that all payments received from the sister company cannot be treated as deemed dividend but only payments which bear the characteristics of loans and advances. Under the law, all loans and advances are debts, but all debts are not loans and advances. The term 'loans and advances' is not defined & has to be understood in the commercial sense. Advances given for purely temporary financial accommodation for business purposes does not attract the deeming fiction (All imp judgements referred)

After hearing both the parties and perusing the relevant records, it reveals that they are in the form of current and inter banking accounts and contain both types of entries i.e. giving and taking the amount and appear to be a current account and cannot be considered as loans and advances as contemplated u/s 2(22)(e) of the IT Act

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 18, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 20, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(ia): The amendment to s. 40(a)(ia) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2015, which restricts the disallowance for failure to deduct TDS to 30% of the expenditure instead of 100%, is curative in nature and should be applied retrospectively

We find that Finance (No.2) Act has made amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Various benches of the Tribunals including the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal, have held the amendment made by Finance (No 2) Act to be curative in nature. We further finds the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of R.H. International Vs. ITO (supra) has held that disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act be restricted to 30% of the expenses paid as against 100% because amended provision is curative in nature and the provisions should be applied retrospectively

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 31, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 9, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13 to 2017-18
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68/ 69C: Bogus share capital + Bogus purchases: Photocopies of blank share transfer forms, blank signed receipts etc necessary for transfer of shares found with assessee are not admissible as evidence u/s 61 of Evidence Act and not incriminating in nature. On merits, all investors are assessed & have filed confirmations with trail of funds. AO did not make further inquiry into the documentary evidences or verify the trail of source of funds. As regards bogus purchases, the AO cannot blow hot & cold by disallowing the purchases from a party as bogus while treating sales to same party as genuine

Assessee produced sufficient documentary evidences before the A.O. to prove that money routed from the assessee itself which came back to the assessee in the form of share capital/premium, therefore, assessee proved identity of the Investors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter and as such have been able to prove ingredients of Section 68 of the I.T. Act. The A.O. however did not make any further enquiry on the documentary evidences filed by the assessee. The A.O. did not verify the trail of the source of funds received by assessee through various entities as explained above. The A.O. thus, failed to conduct scrutiny of the documents at assessment stage and merely suspected the transaction between the Investor Companies and the assessee company despite the fact that in the deviation report the A.O. expressed doubts in making addition into the matter. It may also be noted here that no cash have been reported to have been deposited in the accounts of the assessee, the Investor Companies and other related parties

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 8, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 15, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus Share Capital: Merely presenting of documents & making payment through bank or appearance by director before the AO & admitting fact of share application made is in itself not sufficient to justify the genuineness of the transaction. It is against human probability that anyone will invest and pay share premium in a company without net worth or future prospectus. All applicants with common address are being controlled remotely by one person. These applicants are all paper companies not having sufficient worth and created for providing entries of share application money or share capital or loans by way of accommodation entries (NDR Promoter 410 ITR 379 (Del) & NRA Iron & Steel 103 TM.com 48 (SC) followed)

It is against the human probability that anyone will invest and pay share premium of Rs. 50/- per share without having any net worth of the company or any future prospectus of earning by the company. The current directors have not been able to justify, why the shares were purchased at high premium, without corresponding valuation of the company, which was having meagre income. It is impossible that directors of these nine companies are having either of the two addresses of the Paharganj area of New Delhi. In normal circumstances it is not possible until unless all these companies are being controlled remotely by one person. All the circumstances manifests that these are all paper companies not having sufficient worth and created for providing entries of share application money or share capital or loans by way of accommodation entries

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

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 1, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 10, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: Failure by the AO to offer cross-examination of the persons whose statements are relied upon means that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee. Dept's plea for a remand is not acceptable if the assessee has discharged primary onus (Nova Promoters 342 ITR 169 (Del) & Jansampark Advertising 375 ITR 373 (Del) distinguished). Paradise Inland 98 CCH 0417 followed

The assessee was supplied with the seized material at the fag end of the assessment proceedings and assessee sought opportunity to cross examine these persons for rebuttal of the allegation. However, the AO did not provide any opportunity to the assessee to cross examine these persons on behalf of assessee to find out the truth. Therefore, such statements cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. We rely upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chelaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) and of Bombay High Court in case of Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 1, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 6, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Tax Planning: The fact that the assessee bought and sold shares of groups concerns with a view to book loss and off-set the capital gains from another transaction does not mean that the loss can be treated as bogus if the documentation is in order. The loss cannot be treated as "speculation loss" under the Explanation to s. 73 because the shares were held as investments

The claim of assessee-company is supported by the documents on record. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) rightly came to the finding that the assessee-company has genuinely entered into purchase and sale of shares and if any, loss have been suffered by the assessee-company, A.O. cannot treat the same as non-genuine due to extraneous considerations or irrelevant reasons in the assessment order

COURT: ,
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 9, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 5, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 1997-98
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: Law explained on whether penalty can be imposed where (i) income is added or disallowance is made on estimate basis, (ii) books of account cannot be produced for reasons beyond control, (iii) disallowance is made as per retrospective insertion of s. 37(1) Explanation & (iv) allegation regarding concealment vs. furnishing inaccurate particulars is vague & uncertain

Where income is estimated or disallowance of expenses i made on estimate basis, there can be no penalty. The raison d’etre for non-imposition of penalty in both the situations is that there is a lack of precision as to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It is only an estimation shorn of any certainty or accuracy

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 10, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68/ 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11 UA(2)(a): Law on whether share capital/ share premium received by a Company from investors can be assessed as 'unexplained cash credit' explained in the light of judgements of the Courts and Tribunal (All imp judgements referred)

The A.O. failed to conduct scrutiny of the documents at assessment stage and merely suspected the transactions in question on the irrelevant reasons. The A.O. did not make any enquiry from the Banker of the Investor and Income Tax record of the Investor Company. The valuation report filed by the assessee support explanation of assessee that shares were issued at premium which were below the fair market value per share of Rs.1221. The assessee, thus, proved the identity of the Investor, its creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. No material has been produced before us to rebut the explanation of assessee. We, therefore, did not find any justification to sustain the addition

COURT: ,
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 19, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 21, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-02
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 32: Goodwill is an intangible asset. It falls under the expression "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" and is eligible for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The question whether when a firm has been succeeded by a company and net assets of the firm have vested in the company, there is any transfer of goodwill in the real sense and whether the valuation of goodwill done by the assessee is erroneous has to be decided by the Division Bench

It is vivid from the discussion made supra that qua the issue of depreciation on goodwill, the authorities below have divided it into two broader compartments by holding that i) no depreciation can be legally allowed on the amount of genuine goodwill in terms of section 32 of the Act; and ii) when a firm is succeeded by a company and all its net assets vest in the company, there is no transfer of goodwill in real sense and further the valuation of goodwill done by the assessee in the instant case is fallacious