Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 31, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 6, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06 to 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 153A: Law on whether an assessment made u/s 143(1) can be said to have abated & whether an assessment u/s 153A can be made in the absence of incriminating material explained

Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment “can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 21, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 6, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 263: An order of revision which does not show independent application of mind by the CIT is against the spirit of the Act and liable to be set aside

The order of the Assessing Officer may be brief and cryptic but that by itself is not sufficient reason to hold that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It is for the Commissioner to point out as to what error was committed by the Assessing Officer in taking a particular view. In the case in hand, the Commissioner of Income Tax has failed to point out error in the assessment order. For invoking revisionary powers the Commissioner of Income Tax has to exercise his own discretion and judgment. Here the Commissioner of Income Tax has invoked the provisions of section 263 at the mere suggestion of the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, without exercising his own discretion and judgment. In view of the fact that the Commissioner of Income Tax has invoked the provisions of section 263 without applying his own independent judgment and merely at the behest of proposal forwarded by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax is against the spirit of Act. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 27, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 5, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
High Court Shocked At Loot Of Taxpayers Funds By Corrupt Babus. Calls For Non-Cooperation Movement By Taxpayers To Eradicate "Hydra Headed Monster" Of Corruption

Hon’ble Justice A. B. Chaudhari of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has passed severe strictures against the Government for turning a blind eye to the rampant corruption in the Country. The learned Judge lamented that “It shocks one and all as to the manner in which the taxpayers’ money is being swindled, misappropriated and robbed by such unscrupulous holders of posts”.

He also pointed that corruption has become the order of the day over the past few decades and that taxpayers are helpless victims of the sordid state of affairs.

“Does the taxpayers pay the money to the Government for such kind of acrobatics being played” Justice Chaudhari asked in a rhetorical manner.

He also lamented that ethics and morals have taken a back seat in modern India’s scheme of things. He opined that to eradicate the “hydra headed monster” of corruption, citizens have to come together to tell their Governments that they have had enough. He also recommended that taxpayers’ may have to resort to refuse to pay taxes by a “non-cooperation movement“.

The learned Judge also found fault with the attitude of the employees’ unions who are otherwise very vigilant about their rights. He expressed surprise that the Unions do not “condemn, outcast or demonstrate against their counterpart bureaucracy indulging in corruption” and on the contrary support their misdeeds.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 10, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 29, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Controversy on whether s. 80-1A(9) mandates that the amount of profits allowed as deduction u/s 80-1A(1) has to be reduced from the profits of the business of the undertaking while computing deduction under any another provisions under heading C in Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 referred to larger Bench

While Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave took the view that the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Great Eastern Exports v. Commissioner of Income-Tax2 [2011] 332 ITR 14 (Delhi) lays down the correct position in law and allowed the appeals of the Revenue, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra dissented and held that the law laid down by the Bombay High Court had in Associated Capsules Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another [2011] 332 ITR 42 (Bom) lays down the correct position in law and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. In view of difference of opinion, the matters have been referred to a larger Bench

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 6, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 29, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2004-05 to 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 245F: The Settlement Commission does not have the power to direct a special audit u/s 142(2A)

The exclusive jurisdiction of the settlement commission to exercise the powers and perform the functions of an income tax authority, in terms of section 245F(2) of the said Act, is to be exercised and performed for the purpose of settlement of the case under Chapter XIX-A and not for assessment under Chapter XIV. That being the case, the powers and functions which are in the exclusive jurisdiction of the settlement commission are circumscribed by the object and role which has been ascribed to the settlement commission, which is to settle the case in terms of the procedure stipulated in Chapter XIX-A. Since assessment of the type contemplated under section 143(3) is outside the purview of settlement proceedings, a special audit under section 142(2A), which is in aid of assessment, would also be beyond the scope of settlement proceedings

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 26, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 29, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Subsidy granted to set up a wind project is a capital receipt. the subsidy cannot be reduced under Explanation 10 to s. 43(1) from the cost of the assets acquired though 100% depreciation is allowed on the cost of the assets. The subsidy is also not assessable either u/s 41(1) or u/s 50

So far as the contention of the AO that the subsidy is liable to be taxed under section 50 of the Act is concerned, we find that in this case neither there was a transfer of any asset from the block nor did the block has ceased to exist. It is not a case of capital gains by way of transfer but it is only a case of capital receipt as observed above as an incentive by the state government to promote the generation of electricity through non conventional sources. In view of the above, in our view, the subsidy received by the assessee is not taxable under section 41(1) neither under section 43(1) and nor under section 50 of the Act

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 11, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 26, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Transfer of shares of an Indian Co by a Mauritius entity to a Singapore entity due to group reorganization is not a scheme for avoidance of tax. The capital gains are exempt under India-Mauritius DTAA. Treaty shopping is permissible. A ROI u/s 139(1) need not be filed if income is exempt from tax

Dow IMEA Group was dismantled in 2010 and that is how the need for realignment of the group arose whereby DAS entity was to be shifted from an entity which falls under Europe region to an entity which would fall in the Asia-Pacific region. This was to be done with a view to achieve better control. Singapore is one of the upcoming countries in Asia-Pacific region in the opinion of the applicant and therefore, the Dow group contemplated to shift the share holding of DAS India from Mauritius to Singapore. All this exercise is also more than 5 years old from the date of the last acquisition of the shares. Thus, it cannot be said that the proposed transfer of shares was amounting to a scheme to avoid payment of taxes in India. It was clearly for the business considerations. We, therefore, reject the contention of the Revenue that this amounting to a scheme to avoid payment of taxes in India. We accept the contention raised by the applicant about its not having a PE in India

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 12, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 26, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Managerial services rendered by a UK Co to an Indian Co, even if technical in nature, is not assessable as “fees for technical services” under Article 13 of India-UK DTAA if it does not “make available” any skill, technical know-how etc

To fit into the terminology ‘make available’, the technical knowledge, skills etc must remain with the person receiving the services even after the particular contract comes to an end. The services offered may be the product of intense technological effort and lot of technical knowledge and experience of the service provider would have gone into it. But, that is not enough to fall within the description of services which make available the technical knowledge, etc. The technical knowledge or skills of the provider should be imparted to and absorbed by the receiver so that the receiver can deploy similar technology or techniques in future without depending on the provider

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 19, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 26, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Amount received by a FII under a settlement for giving up right to sue is not assessable as either capital gains or as business profits. In principle, a FII is an "investor" and not a "trader" in stocks. On facts, applying Circular No. 4 of 2007, Aberdeen is an investor in shares

The Circular No.4 of 2007 issued by the CBDT quotes three principles laid down by this Authority in the case of Fidelity Group 288 ITR 641 in order to determine whether shares held are investment or stock-in-trade. First principle is how the shares were valued in the books of accounts, i.e., whether they were valued as stock-in-trade or held as investment. In this case the books of accounts show that the shares were held as investment. The second principle is to verify whether there are substantial transactions, their magnitude etc, maintenance of books of accounts and finding the ratio between purchases and sales. In this case the shares of Satyam were purchased, held as investment and sold only after the fraud became public. The third principle suggests that ordinarily purchases and sales of shares with the motive of realizing profit would lead to inference of trade/adventure in the nature of trade; where the object of the investment in shares of companies is to derive income by way of dividends etc, the transactions of purchases and sales of share would yield capital gains and not business profits. This principle also suggests that in this case the object of the investment is not to have business profit because the shares of Satyam were not being purchased and sold at regular interval. In the light of this even CBDT Circular No.4 of 2007 does not support the stand of Revenue that Aberdeen investors were engaged in trading business

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 30, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 26, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
An installation project which does not last more than 183 days in a fiscal year is not a "Permanent Establishment" and the business profits are taxable only in Singapore under Article 7(1) of the India-Singapore DTAA

Since the project executed by the applicant in India for Brahmaputra continued only for 178 days in a fiscal year and as the duration of the project is less than 183 days in a fiscal year, Permanent Establishment of the applicant cannot be constituted in India for the FY 2012-13 as per the provisions of Article 5.3 of the India-Singapore DTAA. Hence, the business profits accruing or arising to the applicant by way of the execution of the project under reference is taxable only in the country where the applicant is a resident, as per Article 7.1 of India-Singapore DTAA

Read more ›