Home › › Page 6

Search Results For: S. C. Dharmadhikari J

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: April 7, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147: Reopening (even of s. 143(1) assessment) on the ground that a specific aspect requires verification is not permissible

In the present case, the AO does not state that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. All that the Revenue desires is verification of certain details and pertaining to the gift. That is not founded on the belief that any income which is chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and hence, such verification is necessary. That belief is not recorded and which alone would enable the Assessing Officer to proceed

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 1, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 8, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10 & 11: In computing the income of charitable institutions exempt u/s 11, income exempt u/s 10 has to be excluded. The requirement in s. 11 with regard to application of income for charitable purposes does not apply to income exempt u/s 10

There is nothing in the language of sections 10 or 11 which says that what is provided by section 10 or dealt with is not to be taken into consideration or omitted from the purview of section 11. If we accept the argument of the Revenue, the same would amount to reading into the provisions something which is expressly not there. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the income which in this case the assessee trust has not included by virtue of section 10, then, that cannot be considered under section 11

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 26, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 8, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 148: The notice should not be in a standard format but indicate why s. 147 has been resorted to. The term "failure to disclose material facts" has a specific legal connotation. The non-disclosure has to be of a "material fact" to attract s. 147

When the Revenue alleges failure to make full and true disclosure of material facts, then, the term failure has some specific legal connotation. Here, material facts are pertaining to the expenses under the head “management fees”. It is apparent that the words employed are material facts. It is not just facts but material facts. The word “material” in the context means “important, essential, relevant, concerned with the matter, not the form of reasoning” (see Oxford Dictionary Concise Eighth Edition). Just as disclosure of every fact would not suffice but for proceeding under section 147 non disclosure ought to be of a material fact

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 25, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 31, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 147/ 148: If the recorded reasons show contradiction and inconsistency it means necessary satisfaction in terms of the statutory provision has not been recorded at all. The Court cannot be called upon to indulge in guess work or speculate as to which reason has enabled the AO to act in terms of s. 147

The Court cannot be called upon to indulge in guess work or speculate as to which reason has enabled the Assessing Officer to act in terms of this section. If more than one reason is assigned as in this case then the Court can sustain the notice only if it is of the opinion that an erroneous reference to a statutory provision has been made but still there is an income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and on account of which issuance of notice is justified. Which ground is sufficient to sustain the notice is something which must be indicated in clear terms and should not be a matter of speculation or guess work

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 27, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2002-03
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
In applying the ‘extrapolation’ principle of Eusafali 90 ITR 271 (SC), the AO is entitled to make an estimation based on guesswork. However, the estimate must not be arbitrary and should be based on material

The ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. HM Eusafali HM Abdulala (1973) 90 ITR 271 (SC) has been explained in the later judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr. M.K.E. Memon 248 ITR 310 (Bom.) It is open for the Assessing Officer to make an estimation and in that process there could be a certain guess work as well. That element cannot be discarded totally

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 17, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 23, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2): If the Tribunal accepts that a mistake has crept in the order, interests of justice is served if the entire order is recalled (suo moto by the ITAT) & appeal re-heard. Appeals should not be disposed off in “light hearted” and “casual manner”

During the pendency of the Appeal before the High Court, the Tribunal passed an order on the Miscellaneous Application and revived the appeal filed before it for hearing afresh on merits in relation to withdrawal of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia). However, …

State Bank of India vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) Read More »

Posted on by editor — 3 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 18, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 22, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer Fees recd by Co-op Hsg Soc from incoming & outgoing members (even in excess of limits) is exempt on the ground of mutuality

The assessee, a Co-operative Housing Society, received a sum of Rs.39,68,000 on account of transfer of flat and garage and credited it to ‘general amenities fund’ as well as ‘repair fund’. The assessee claimed that the said receipt is exempted …

CIT vs. Darbhanga Mansion CHS Ltd (Bombay High Court) Read More »

Posted on by editor — 3 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 11, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 17, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 45/ 48: Gains on sale of TDR received as additional FSI as per the D. C. Regulations has no cost of acquisition and is not chargeable to capital gains

Only an asset which is capable of acquisition at a cost would be included within the provisions pertaining to the head “Capital gains” as opposed to assets in the acquisition of which no cost at all can be conceived. In …

CIT vs. Sambhaji Nagar Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd (Bombay High Court) Read More »

Posted on by editor — 10 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 15, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 17, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Article 19(1)(g): Levy of service-tax on Advocates is constitutional

A Writ Petition was filed to challenge the levy of service-tax on advocates. It was claimed that an advocate renders services which cannot be said to be commercial or business like. They cannot be equated with the service providers mentioned …

P. C. Joshi vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) Read More »

Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: , ,
DATE: December 5, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 5, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 41(1): Payment of Net Present Value of sales-tax deferral loan does not constitute a taxable "benefit"

The High Court had to consider whether the judgement of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Sulzer India Ltd vs. JCIT 138 ITD 1 (SB)(Mum) that the difference between the Net Present Value of sales-tax liability and its future …

CIT vs. Sulzer India Limited (Bombay High Court) Read More »