Home ›

Search Results For: Ramit Kochar (AM)

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: June 18, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 19, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus F&O Loss: Unusual & sudden spurt in client code modifications undertaken by brokers was with an intention to evade taxes. In large number of client code modifications, there are no similarity between wrong code and correct code and secondly there are repetitive client code modifications. Thus, client code modifications are tainted with collusive action and manipulations & shall go out of the protection granted by the circulars of NSE/SEBI (Rakesh Gupta 405 ITR 213 (P&H) & Ninja Securities followed)

It came to notice of the Revenue that in FY 2009-10 many brokers had misused this facility of client code modifications to artificially create profits/losses which were passed on various clients/ beneficiaries with a view to defraud revenue. These brokers also benefitted by charging commission incomes for arranging these fictitious losses/profits for clients/beneficiaries. This also led to invocation of provisions of Section 131(1A) of the 1961 Act by Revenue against these brokers wherein these brokers admitted to be engaged in manipulations vide client code modifications in trade entered through stock exchanges wherein fictitious losses/profits were created which were passed on clients/beneficiaries to defraud Revenue. These brokers surrendered income by way of brokerage income earned by them on these fictitious profits/losses passed on to various clients/beneficiaries

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 11, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2) r.w Rule 34(5): Excessive delay by the Tribunal in passing judgement shakes the confidence of the litigants. Under Rule 34(5) of the Tribunal Rules read with Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant 317 ITR 433 (Bom) & Otters Club (Bom), orders have to be passed invariably within three months of the completion of hearing of the case. The delay is incurable. Even administrative clearance cannot cure the delay. Such decisions rendered after 3 months reflect a mistake apparant from the record and have to be recalled and the appeals heard afresh

Nevertheless, we think that an unreasonable delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of a judgment, unless explained by exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, is highly undesirable even when written arguments are submitted. It is not unlikely that some points which the litigant considers important may have escaped notice. But, what is more important is that litigants must have complete confidence in the results of litigation. This confidence tends to be shaken if there is excessive delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of judgments. Justice, as we have often observed, must not only be done but must manifestly appear to be done.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 11, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: The assessee has to justify the allottment of shares to outsiders at exorbitant premium with cogent material and not bald statements. The fact that s. 56(2)(viib) r.w.s. 2(24)(xvi) comes into effect from AY 2013-14 does not mean that for earlier years the assessee is not required to justify the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction. The burden is very high for closely held companies. Mere submission of name & address, Balance Sheet & bank statement of the subscribers is not sufficient to discharge the onus (all judgements on the point considered)

The assessee did not rely on its own financial statements, business model and financial indicators as are existing in its audited financial statements to justify charging of huge share premium of Rs. 490 per share as against face value of Rs. 10 per share from these new shareholders. The problem got further aggravated when the assessee does not bring on record project report or any other cogent material justifying issue of shares at huge premium which could reflects viability, higher profitability and bright future prospects of the assessee company by implementing project for which funds were raised at huge share premium to justify chargeability of such a huge share premium. The assessee’s claim in statement of fact/written submissions as to justification of share premium / valuation etc are not substantiated through any cogent evidences on record and are merely bald statements which cannot be relied upon in the absence of cogent material/evidences brought on record by the assessee. The assessee raised funds to the tune of Rs. 300 lacs from these new shareholders and it was for the assessee to have brought on record cogent material to substantiate its contentions and if the evidences are withheld by the assessee then it is at assessee’s own peril as presumption will be drawn against the assessee.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 23, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: May 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 69C Bogus Purchases (100% disallowance confirmed): The right of cross-examination is not absolute. No prejudice is caused to the assessee by non granting of cross examination if the assessee has not discharged the primary onus. The fact that purchase bills are produced and payment is made through banking channels is not sufficient if the other evidence is lacking

No prejudice is caused to the assessee by non granting of opportunity of cross examination by the authorities below as right of cross examination is not absolute as in the instant case even primary onus that fell on the assessee did not stood discharged. Had assessee discharged its primary onus, but still the authorities proceed to prejudice assessee based solely on the incriminating statements/affidavits of third parties recorded at the back of the assessee, the right of the assessee to cross examine these third parties will become absolute. It is not a case that the authorities below have merely/solely relied on the statement/affidavit of third parties namely hawala dealers recorded at the back of the assessee to cause prejudice to the assessee rather primary onus that lay on the assessee was not discharged by the assessee

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: November 16, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: Imp principles law down reg (i) disallowance for single segment companies being investors and dealers in shares and having to incur all business expenses under normal circumstances, (ii) strategic investments, (iii) securities held as stock-in-trade, (iv) inclusion of securities which have not yielded any exempt income and (v) whether diminution in value of securities constitutes "expenditure" for disallowance

Strategic investments/stock in trade have to be excluded for computing disallowance under 14A. The AO should keep in mind that the assessee is a single segment company being an investor and dealer in shares & securities and consequently all the business expenses ought to have been incurred towards this segment under normal circumstances unless otherwise shown

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 18, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 28, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(15)/12AA: The activities of Banquet Hall Hiring, Hospitality (Restaurants) and Permit Room (Bar) are prima facie in the nature of carrying on trade, commerce, or business for consideration and are hit by the proviso to s. 2(15). If the receipts from these activities are in excess of the minimum prescribed threshold limit, the DIT is required to conduct detailed enquiry and examination as to the nexus between the activities and trade, commerce or business

In the light of the above observation and respectfully following the same, we are prima facie of the opinion that the activities of the assessee of Banquet Hall Hiring, Hospitality (Restaurants) and Permit Room (Bar) are in the nature of carrying on trade, commerce, or business for consideration, which are hit by proviso to Section 2(15) of 1961 Act. We further observe that the receipts from these activities, during the previous year relevant to the impugned assessment year 2009-10, are far in excess of minimum prescribed threshold limit. This requires detailed enquiry and examination by the Ld. DIT(Exemption) as to the various activities undertaken by the assessee over a period of time and its nexus with activity of rendering of trade commerce or business as contemplated and mandated by amended Section 2(15) of 1961 Act read in conjunction with significant observations made in the above order dated 14-2-2017 in North Indian Association(supra). Thus, enquiry and examination by learned DIT(E) is further required to arrive at a conclusion whether activities of the assessee are genuine or not in context of Section 11 of the Act read with amended Section 2(15) of the Act and breach of threshold limit over a period of time

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 24, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 22, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 263: There is a distinction between “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry”. If the AO has called for the necessary details and the assessee has furnished the same, the fact that the AO is silent in the assessment order does not mean that he has not applied his mind so as to justify exercise of revisional powers by the CIT u/s 263

We are of the view, that there is a distinction between “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry”. In the present case the Assessing Officer collected necessary details, examined the same and then framed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, in such a situation the decision from Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del.)(supra), clearly comes to the rescue of the assessee . We are expected to ascertain whether the Assessing Officer had investigated/examined the issue and applied his mind towards the whole record made available by the assessee during assessment proceedings. Uncontrovertedly, necessary details/reply to the questionnaire were filed/produced by the assessee and the same were examined by the Assessing Officer, therefore, it is not a case of lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 4, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 7, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Purchases: If the assessee has not discharged the onus of producing the documentation and the suppliers, the AO is entitled to estimate the gross profit. The GP estimate should be fair, honest and rational and cannot be arbitrarily applied at the discretion of the AO. Industry comparisons or other rational comparability vis-à vis preceding years GP ratio should be brought on record. The books should be rejected. On facts, GP ratio of 12.5% as applied in Simit P Sheth 356 ITR 451(Guj) is fair, reasonable and rational after giving credit for the GP already declared

The authorities below in the instant case did not made any industry comparisons to arrive at fair, honest and rational estimation of GP ratio, rather applied GP ratio of 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases which estimation was in addition to the normal GP ratio declared by the assessee in return of income filed with Revenue. The Revenue made aforesaid additions relying on the presumption that the material was in-fact purchased from grey market at a lower rate and to cover deficiencies in record, the invoices were procured from these entry operators to reduce the profit. It was also considered that there will be savings on account of taxes while procuring material from grey market. The authorities below relied upon decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451(Guj HC), which has estimated disallowance @12.5% of the disputed bogus purchases to meet the end of justice. The authorities below has not brought on record industry comparables nor any rational comparability vis-à vis preceding years GP ratio are brought on record. There is no allegation brought on record by learned DR that similar additions were also made in the immediately preceding year

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 31, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 30, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A/ Rule 8D disallowance applies also to dividends received from strategic investments in subsidiaries. S. 40A(2) disallowance is not applicable to co-operative societies. As per Circular No. 14 (XL-35) of 1955 dated 11.4.1955, the AO is obliged to assist the assessee and allow deduction even if not claimed

We are also of the considered view, that strategic investment made by the assessee in its subsidiary Saraswat Infotech Limited as well in the other securities which are capable of yielding exempt income i.e. by way of dividend etc. which are exempt from tax shall be included while computing disallowance u/s 14A of the Act as per the scheme of the Act as contained in provisions of Section 14A of the Act as the statute does not grant any exemption to the strategic investments which are capable of yielding exempt income to be excluded while computing disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and hence the investment made by the assessee in subsidiary company M/s Saraswat Infotech Limited and all other securities which are capable of yielding exempt income by way of dividend etc shall be included for the purposes of disallowance of expenditure incurred in relation to the earning of exempt income , as stipulated u/s 14A of the Act. Our decision is fortified by the recent decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of United Breweries Limited v. DCIT in ITA No. 419/2009 vide orders dated 31-05-2016 and also decision of the tribunal in the case of ACIT v. Uma Polymers Limited in ITA no 5366/Mum/2012 and CO No. 234/Mum/2013 vide orders dated 30-09-2015

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 14, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 29, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 69C Bogus Purchases: Though S. 133(6) notices were returned unserved and the assessee could not produce the alleged bogus hawala suppliers, the entire purchases cannot be added as undisclosed income. The addition has to be restricted by estimating Gross Profit ratio on the purchases from the alleged accommodation entry providers

The A.O. has doubted the purchases from these four alleged accommodation entry providers being hawala dealers as concluded by Sales Tax Department of Government of Maharashtra to be bogus purchases, that these four parties only provided accommodation bills and the goods were never supplied by these parties and the assessee allegedly made purchases from some other parties for which payments were made through undisclosed income. Thus, the A.O. observed that the assessee has purchased the material from someone else while bogus bills were organized by these hawala dealers, hence, section 69C of the Act was invoked by the AO and additions were made by the AO

Read more ›