Home ›

Search Results For: V. Durga Rao (JM)

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 23, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 5, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C: The stamp duty value on the date of the agreement to sell has to be adopted and not the value on the date of the deed of sale. The proviso to s. 50C, though inserted by the Finance Act 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017, has to be given retrospective effect from 01.04.2003 as it is intended to remove an undue hardship and is curative in nature

The facts relating to the market value as on the date of agreement to sale and as on the date of sale deed is not disputed. The only dispute is whether the stamp duty value as on the date of agreement to sale or sale deed to be considered for the purpose of computation of capital gain. The purpose of introducing section 50C of the Act was to counter suppression of sale consideration of sale of immovable properties. Before insertion of section 50C of the Act to the statute, there are lot of litigations as to consideration shown in document conveying title and payment of stamp duty. To overcome the litigations, the provision of section 50C of the Act has been inserted to the statute w.e.f. 1.6.2003 wherein it is made mandatory to adopt value u/s 50C of the Act for the purpose of determination of consideration. A proviso to section 50C of the Act has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1.4.2017 to resolve the genuine and intended hardship, in the case in which the date of agreement to sale is prior to the date of sale and market value of the property as on the date of agreement to sale and date of sale deed is different

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 9, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 23, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(47)/ 54EC/54F: U/s 108 of the Companies Act read with CBDT Circular No. 704 dated 28.04.1995, a mere agreement for transfer of shares does not cause effective transfer of shares unless it is accompanied with delivery of share certificate and duly signed and stamped share transfer form. An agreement to transfer share merely gives an enforceable right to the parties

The word transfer of shares is an act of the parties, i.e. transferor and transferee by which title to share is transferred from one person to another for a consideration or otherwise. Share transfer is governed by section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956. As per section 108 of the Companies Act, 1956 registration of transfer of shares is possible only if a proper transfer deed in form no. 7B duly stamped and signed by or on behalf of the transferor and by or on behalf of the transferee and specifying the name, address and occupation, if any of the transferee and has been delivered to the company along with share certificates and endorsed by the Company by changing such details in the share holder register maintained under the Companies Act. In the case of shares of listed companies, effective transfer would take place when title to share is transferred from one person to another through demat account in recognized stock exchange. In the case of shares of unlisted companies, transfer would take place, only when valid share transfer form in form no. 7B is delivered to the company and endorsed by the Company. Therefore, for effective transfer of shares a mere agreement for transfer of shares is not sufficient, unless it is physically transfer shares by delivery of share certificate along with duly signed and stamped share transfer form

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 16, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 12, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06 to 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
The pre-amended Explanation 5A to s. 271(1)(c) applies to non-filer assessees where a ROI is not filed before search and undisclosed income is not offered in the ROI. The amended provision of Explanation 5A, which is applicable to both filers and non-filers of returns, does not apply to searches conducted pre 13.08.2009. Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) to cases which are covered by s. 271AAA is void

The provisions of explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) as it stood as on the date of search or filing of the return u/s 153A of the Act, is important to reckon whether the deeming fiction provided in the said provisions is applicable or not. The pre-amended provisions of explanation 5A is applicable to a non filer assessees, where the assessee’s is not filed return of income before the search and also not disclosed the undisclosed income in the return of income. The amended provision of explanation 5A, which is brought into the statute by the Finance Act 2009, (which was received ascent of President on 13.8.2009) is applicable to both filers and non-filers of returns. In the present case on hand, the law applicable as on the date of search, which was pre-amended provisions of explanation 5A, as per which no penalty can be leviable, in case the assessee has filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act before the date of search, whether or not undisclosed income is disclosed in the said return. Admittedly in this case, the search is taken place on 16.11.2007. The assessee has filed return of income u/s 1534 of the Act u/s 30.1.2009

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 21, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 12, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 35(2AB): The AO is bound to grant deduction if the R&D facility is approved by the competent authority. He has no jurisdiction in sit in judgement over the approval. The fact that the competent authority did not file the report with the department as prescribed is a technical lapse for which the assessee is not liable.

Once, the R&D facility is approved by the competent authority and assessee has complied with the prescribed rules, the A.O. is bound to allow the deductions claimed u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, if he is satisfied that the assessee’s facility is approved by the competent authority. In case the A.O. is having any doubt with regard to the goods manufactured by the assessee or expenditure claimed, the A.O. is bound to refer the matter back to the competent authority through appropriate authority i.e. the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and seek clarifications. Thus, it would emerge from above analysis that neither the A.O. nor the board was competent to take any decision of any such controversy relating to report and approval granted by the prescribed authority as it involved expert view or opinion. It was prescribed authority alone which would be competent to take decision with regard to the correctness or otherwise and its order of approval granted in form no.3CL as prescribed u/s 35(2AB) of the Act read with rule 7A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In the present case on hand, on perusal of the facts available on record, we find that the A.O. without following the procedure laid down under rules, simply disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee by holding that the goods manufactured by the assessee are mere office machines and apparatus listed in Eleventh schedule. Therefore, we are of the view that the A.O. is not correct in disallowing the claim made by the assessee u/s 35(2AB) of the Act

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 24, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 27, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10, 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Loss suffered on account of forex derivative contracts (Exotic Cross Currency Option Contracts) cannot be treated as speculative loss to the extent that the derivative transactions are not more than the total export turnover of the assessee. If the derivative transaction is in excess of export turnover, the loss in respect of that portion of excess transactions has to be considered as speculative loss because the excess derivative transaction has no proximity with export turnover

We make it clear that total transaction considered for determining this business loss from derivative transactions cannot be more than the total export turnover of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration and if the derivative transaction is in excess of export turnover, then that loss suffered in respect of that portion of excess transactions to be considered as speculative loss only as that excess derivative transaction has no proximity with export turnover and the Assessing Officer is directed to compute accordingly

Read more ›