Home ›

Search Results For: S. Rifaur Rahman (AM)

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 10, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 17, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10, 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 28(iv) /68: Bogus share premium: The fact that the premium is abnormally high as per test of human probabilities is not sufficient. The AO has to lift the corporate veil & determine whether any benefit is passed on to the shareholders/directors. Directions issued to AO to establish whether assessee company was used as a vehicle to pass on the benefit to shareholders/directors

We also cannot presume or apply test of human probabilities, we are dealing with the business transaction, it has to be based on cogent material. Considering the whole situation, in our considered view, the AO/CIT(A) have restricted themselves by stopping the investigation based on circumstantial evidence and applying test of human probabilities. In order to lift the corporate veil for the purpose of determining whether any benefit is passed on to the shareholders/directors, they have to bring on record proper evidence/cogent material

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 12, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 26, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 254(2): The period of limitation for filing a rectification application is six months from the end of the month in which the “order is passed” and not from the date of “receipt of the order”. Even if a liberal view is taken, it can be considered as the date of uploading of the order on the ITAT website. The uploaded orders can be accessed by the assessee and constitutes service of the order upon the assessee

Section 254(2) of the Act refers to the period of limitation reckoning from the end of the month in which the order Is passed’ and not from the ‘date of receipt of the order’. As rightly pointed out by the Ld DR, the expressions “passed” “initiated” and “served / received” are not interchangeable and the Legislature in its wisdom expressly used the phraseology depending on the intention. In the instant case, the expression “passed” cannot be stretched to mean that the period of limitation should be reckoned from the date of receipt of the order. Even if a liberal view has to be taken, it can be considered as the date of uploading of the order. Ordinarily anything which is uploaded in the public domain can be accessed by the public at large and even the assessee would have access to the order and such a date always be treated as the service of the order

Read more ›