Home › › Page 2

Search Results For: Sanjay Arora (AM)

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — 2 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 3, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 10, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 56(2)/ 68: Old liabilities, even if treated as genuine in earlier years and even if on capital account, are liable to be assessed as "income" in year of write-back if assessee is unable to provide confirmations and substantiate genuineness of liabilities

When an amount, which is stated, claimed and accepted as a payable, is no longer so, the assessee gains to that extent. There is nothing unreal or notional about this gain. What is admitted though is that there has been remission/cessation of liability in-as-much as these are no longer payable. Why? No reason is advanced. It is under these circumstances that the law permits the A.O. to draw an adverse inference of it as representing the assessee’s income. As regards the year, there can again be little doubt in the matter

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 1 Comment ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: May 22, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 2, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
(i) S. 48: Interest paid on moneys borrowed to acquire assets cannot be treated as the 'cost of acquisition' of the asset, (ii) S. 41(1): Unclaimed liabilities are deemed to have been remitted/ ceased and are taxable in the year of discovery by AO

The interest cost is toward the retention of the borrowing and, concomitantly, the retention or the holding of the asset under reference, i.e., is a function of the holding period. It is, thus, rightly described as a holding cost or a period cost, depending upon how one may look at it. This difference is again of relevance in-as-much as the asset may be sold/realized without the repayment of the debt, so that the interest cost continues independent of the asset. Again, the debt may be repaid/liquidated, extinguishing the interest cost, while the holding of the asset continues. That is, even the holding cost relationship is not automatic or follows as a natural corollary. The two, i.e., the interest cost and cost of the asset, are in any case independent of each other

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: April 10, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 24, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S.12AA(3): The issue of withdrawal of s. 11 exemption in the light of s. 2(15) amendment is contentious and requires decision by larger Bench of the ITAT

No doubt, the assessee has relied on one decision by the hon’ble high court [CIT v. Sarvyodaya Ilakkiya Pannai [2012] 343 ITR 300 (Mad)], but then the said decision stands also considered by the tribunal in the case of Entertainment Society of Goa v. CIT [2013] 23 ITR (Trib) 636 (Panaji), relied upon by the Revenue, holding, with reference to decision by the hon’ble jurisdictional high court in CIT v. Thane Electricity Supply Ltd [1994] 206 ITR 727 (Bom), the decision by the non-jurisdictional high court as not binding. The rule of precedence, in case of conflicting views by the high courts, none of which is jurisdictional, is for the tribunal to follow that which appeals to its conscious. The appropriate course under the circumstances, even as indicated during the hearing in the instant proceedings – to no objection by either party, is that the matter be referred to the hon’ble President of the Tribunal for constituting a larger bench of the tribunal to decide the highly contentious issue raised by the assessee’s Ground No.1, decided differently by different coordinate benches of this tribunal, for uniform application across the tribunal

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 27, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 15, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68: Despite documentary evidence and broker’s confirmation, genuineness of penny stock transactions has to be determined on the basis of ‘preponderance of human probabilities’. If assessee is unable to explain ‘intriguing’ facts and circumstances, genuineness of transaction cannot be accepted

Firstly, documentary evidences, in the face of unusual events, as prevailing in the instant case, and without any corroborative or circumstantial evidence/s, cannot be regarded as conclusive. Two, the preponderance of probabilities only denotes the simultaneous existence of several ‘facts’, each probable in itself, albeit low, so as to cast a serious doubt on the truth of the reported ‘facts’, which together make up for a bizarre statement, leading to the inference of collusiveness or a device set up to conceal the truth, i.e., in the absence of credible and independent evidences

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 25, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2003-04
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Mistake in claiming deduction of interest expenditure despite s. 43B attracts penalty

The assessee is a regular assessee, well serviced by tax and audit professionals. The latter issuing a disclaimer for being unable to state the amount disallowable u/s.43B in the absence of the relevant information, defeats its case of it being an inadvertent mistake. On what basis, then, one may ask, was the deduction claimed?

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 25, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 13, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11 & 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 221(1): Penalty cannot be levied for non-payment of S. A tax if the assessee has financial hardship

The assessee claimed that it was having meagre cash and current balances and was in financial constraints during the year under consideration. If there is financial hardship to the assessee it has to be considered as sufficient cause in which event penalty cannot be levied

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 13, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 23, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c): Disclosing income but classifying it under a wrong head amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars and attracts penalty

The assessee’s argument supra of the same being only a differential treatment of the very same, i.e., rental, income, so that there has been thus neither any concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, though appealing, is misconceived. The reason is simple. Yes, the assessee has apparently stated the quantum and nature of the income correctly. However, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not only qua the misstatement of fact/s but also of law

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
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 — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 28, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 16, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Law on applicability of s. 271AAA penalty in the context of a voluntary disclosure u/s 132(4) explained. Difference between s. 271(1)(c) and 271AAA also explained

For s. 271AAA, a finding as to the impugned incomes being undisclosed incomes is a pre-requisite for the application of the provision. Further, each of the three ingredients as specified u/s. 271AAA(2) would need to be separately examined for their satisfaction by the assessee if the penalty there-under is not to be levied and, thus, sustained. The admission u/s.132(4) is to specify the undisclosed income, or at least the manner in which it is to be arrived at; the whole premise for extending immunity from the penalty, statutorily mandated, being that the assessee commits himself, providing the necessary details under a condition of oath.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: February 4, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Expenditure towards repair and renovation of leased premises is capital in nature. Method for allocation of common expenses to different WIP projects of a builder explained

The assessee being a builder and developer, Accounting Standard 7 (AS-7), issued by the ICAI, titled, ‘Construction Contracts’, would not apply, so that the prescription of AS-9 and AS-2, based on general principles that govern any business, would apply for the revenue recognition and inventory valuation respectively. Only costs incurred toward a particular project, or otherwise related to construction activity, would stand to be allocated and, thus, capitalized as a part of the project cost

Read more ›