Home ›

Search Results For: I. P. Bansal (JM)

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 26, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 21, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06, 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 132(4A) presumption does not apply to loose papers found in some other person's possession. While the AO can make a protective assessment, the appellate authority cannot confirm a protective order. It has to either make it substantive or quash it

It is settled that when there is a doubt as to which person amongst the two was liable to be assessed, parallel proceedings may be taken against both and alternative assessments may also be framed. It is also equally true that while a protective assessment is permissible, it is not open to the income-tax appellate authorities constituted under the Act to make a protective order

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 10, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 37(1): Even if no business is carried, the expenditure incurred to maintain the corporate entity has to be allowed as a deduction

There is no doubt that the assessee is a corporate entity. Even if it is not carrying on any business activity it has to incur some expenditure to keep up its corporate entity. Therefore expenditure incurred by it has to be allowed

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 29, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 69C: Law on treating purchases as "bogus" because the supplier is treated as a "hawala" dealer by the VAT authorities explained

The AO had not doubted the genuineness of the purchase but had made the disallowance of Rs.1.37 crores invoking the provisions of 69C of the Act. AO made the addition as the supplier was declared a hawala dealer by the VAT Department. It was a good starting point for making further investigation and taken it to logical end. However, the addition is not sustainable as the purchases had been made through A/c payee cheques that were duly reflected in the bank statement of the assessee ….

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 4, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 31, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06, 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 40(a)(ia): Merilyn Shipping 136 ITD 23 (SB) should be followed in view of approval by Allahabad HC and dismissal of SLP by Supreme Court. In any event as two views are possible, view in favour of assessee should be followed. Amounts already paid without TDS cannot be disallowed

Though there are contrary decisions of the other Hon’ble High Courts, i.e. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Allabahad High Court it can be said the there can be two views possible in this matter in which event the one which is in favour of the assessee has to be followed in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 18, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Though u/s 80-IA(5), the profits of the eligible unit has to be computed on the ‘stand alone’ principle, in a case where the assessee also has non-business income, the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation u/s. 32(2) has to be set off against the eligible profits before computing s. 80-IA deduction

The assessee’s manner of computing Gross Total Income, though mathematically leading to the same result, i.e., in terms of net taxable income, is incorrect and not in conformity with either the terms of the provisions or the scheme of the Act. There is, in fact, no scope for any vacillation; the same being basic to the scheme of the Act, with the apex court in Synco Industries Ltd 299 ITR 444 (SC) explaining the manner in which the GTI is to be computed, so that independent of the provision of s. 80-I(6) (or s. 80-IA(5)), all other applicable provisions, including ss. 32(2) & s. 72, would apply in computing such income

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 18, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271D/ 271E: If assessee's plea about compulsion to pay/ receive loans in cash is not disputed, the violation of s. 269SS/269T is deemed to be bonafide and does not attract penalty

It is also not mentioned in the penalty order that the aforementioned amount taken by the assessee in violation of section 269SS and repayment thereof in violation of section 269T was not bonafide transaction and the same was made with a view to evade tax

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: , ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 31, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 3, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C(2): Reference to DVO cannot be made if assessee has challenged the valuation by the stamp authorities and even if the said challenge is dismissed on ground that as purchaser paid the duty, assessee had no locus standi to challenge stamp valuation

The mandate of section 50C is clear and the sale consideration shall be deemed to be the value adopted or assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The only exception provided is that firstly the assessee should claim before AO that …

Seksaria Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Read More »

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: October 17, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 24, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Law on the tests to distinguish whether gains on sale of shares is short-term or business profits explained

(i) The assessee wonders as to why should she be not allowed her claim of the delivery-based transactions as being not trade, which stands admitted by her qua non-delivery based transactions? However, that precisely defines the controversy which is to …

Harsha L. Tahilramani vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Read More »

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 25, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 3, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) penalty for s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance is permissible

The law, in our humble view, would hold even where the disallowance leading to the variation between the assessed and returned incomes is u/s. 40(a)(ia), being independent of the provision where -under the same (disallowance) is effected. That is, the …

Mulla Associates vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) Read More »