Home ›

Search Results For: Laliet Kumar (JM)

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 23, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 28, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08 to 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Royalty u/s 9(1)(vi) & Article 12: The Google Adwords advertisement module is not merely an agreement to provide advertisement space but is an agreement for facilitating the display and publishing of an advertisement to the targeted customer using Google's patented algorithm, tools and software. Google Adwords uses data regarding the age, gender, region, language, taste habits, food habits, etc of the customer so as to maximize the impression and conversion to the ads of the advertisers. Consequently, the payments to Google Ireland are taxable as "royalty" and the assessee ought to have deducted TDS thereon u/s 195

If we look into the advertisement module of Adword program stated herein above, then we will come to an irresistible conclusion that it is not merely an agreement to provide the advertisement space but is an agreement for facilitating the display and publishing of an advertisement to the targeted customer. If we look into the submission made by the learned AR, it is clear that the advertiser, selects some key words and on the basis of key words, the advertisement is displayed on the website or along with the search result as and when the customer selects the key words relatable to the advertisement. The module as suggested does not merely work by providing the space in the Google search engine, but it works only with the help of various patented tools and software. As we have analyzed detailed functioning of Adword program, it is clear that with the help of the search tool/software / data base, the Google is able to identify the targeted consumer/person as per the requirement of the advertiser

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: September 14, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 21, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271B: Penalty for delay in furnishing tax audit report should not be imposed if there is no mala fide reason for the delay. Dispute with auditor is a reasonable cause u/s 273B for the delay in furnishing the tax audit report

The delay made by the assessee firm in filing the return of income is for the first time i.e. in A.Y. 2008-09 which was on account of dispute of audit fee between the assessee and the auditor. Hence, it appears that the dispute with the statutory auditor is a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B as held in the case of Kripa Industries (I) Ltd. vs. JCIT by ITAT Pune Bench (2002) 76 TTJ 502 (Pune) that there is no mala fide reason for not obtaining the accounts audited in time and penalty u/s 271B should not be imposed

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 6, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 2, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Penalty under Explanation 5A to s. 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on the basis of a mere surrender by the assessee if no incriminating material has been found during search. MAK Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) considered

It is undisputed fact that during the course of search, no incriminating documents were found and seized. The assessee surrendered the additional income under section 132(4) at Rs. 15 lacs and requested not to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The AO imposed the penalty by invoking the Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which has been confirmed by ld. CIT (A) by considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). But for imposing the penalty under Explanation 5A on the basis of statement recorded during the course of search, it is necessary to be found incriminating documents and is to be considered at the time of assessment framed under section 153A of the Act

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 18, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 18, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
In view of CBDT Circular No. 6/2016 dated 29.02.2016, if assessee has consistently shown shares as an “investment” and offered gains as capital gains, AO is not entitle to urge that the same constitutes “stock-in-trade” and assess gains as business profits on grounds that there were substantial and frequent transactions and motive was to earn profit and holding period of such shares was very short

Before us the moot question which is required to be decided is whether the income earned by the assessee on account of share is required to be treated as business income or required to be treated as short term capital gain. After the matter was heard on 11.02.2016, the CBDT came out with the Circular No. 6/2016 dated 29.02.2016 in the following manner. In view of the circular, we have clearly noticed that the issue raised in this appeal stands fully covered by the Circular issued by the CBDT. Since the assessee has treated the securities as investment and not as stock in trade in all the years, therefore, in view of the CBDT Circular, the revenue is not permitted to take a contrary view in the present year and claimed that the security is stock in trade and, therefore, the profit/gain caused to the assessee be treated as business income. In our view, there is no merit in the contention of the revenue and is deserves to be dismissed in view of the circular.

Read more ›

Posted on by Michael Gonsalves — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 21, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68: Law on when share application moneys and share premium from private companies can be treated as bogus and assessed as cash credits explained

The Assessing Officer had not considered the evidence filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings i.e. affidavits confirming the transaction, PAN number, complete addresses of creditors, copy of balance sheet, ITR for A.Y. 2008-09, bank statement and form No. 18. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing the requisite evidences to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the cash creditors. The Assessing Officer herself had accepted the remaining cash creditors to the tune of Rs. 3.95 crores explained on the basis of similar evidences produced by the assessee as genuine. The loan/share capitals were received from the private limited companies. They also are filing return under the company’s law and all information is available on MCA website. The ADIT report was not conclusive to held that the cash creditors were not genuine. It is not required under the law to prove the source of source U/s 68 of the Act. Primary burden lies on the assessee has been discharged by filing the requisite evidences before the Assessing Officer and shifted on the Assessing Officer to disprove the cash creditors’ transactions are not genuine or bogus. The share application money was received by the appellant and subsequently returned though banking channel. In case of 7 companies, the notices were served on it on given addresses. There is no evidence directly or indirectly with the Assessing Officer that the assessee had routed undisclosed money in the guise of share application money or loan

Read more ›