COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 18, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

In large number of cases, we find a peculiar phenomenon. In cases, where huge revenue/demand from the Department is involved, invariably, there is inordinate delay in filing appeals before the High Court under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and in filing special leave petitions before this Court. We do not know the reason why such inordinate delays take place only in matters of stakes. This aspect needs to be looked into. This aspect has been brought to the notice of the learned Attorney General as well as the Ministry of Law in the past. This is one such case. Even in the past, this Court has raised a similar query. Moreover, once a matter is dismissed on the ground of delay, it has a ricocheting effect

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 17, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The cessation of liability to repay the loan taken for purchase of a car is not assessable as income u/s 41(1) in accordance with Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd 261 ITR 501 (Bom). Though in Solid Containers Ltd 308 ITR 407 (Bom) it was held that waiver of a loan taken for trading activity would become the assessee’s income and be subject to tax even if the assessee had never claimed a deduction for the loan, that decision is not applicable because there the loan was taken for "trading purposes" and not for purchase of a capital asset. In the alternative, the waiver of a loan is not taxable u/s 28(iv) as that provision applies only when a benefit or perquiste is received in kind and not in cash

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 17, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

CIT vs. P.R. Ganapathy (Supreme Court) S. 68: Burden on assessee to show that donors have financial capacity to give gifts U/s 68, the burden is on the assessees to show that the amount received by purported gift(s) from the …

S. 68 “Gifts” + S. 147 Reopening + “Matching Principle” Read More »

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 17, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Hindusthan Tobacco Company vs. CIT (Calcutta High Court) Plea of natural justice breach/ cross-examination should be raised at the earliest opportunity The principles of natural justice cannot be construed in isolation from the factual matrix of the case. Though the …

Natural Justice + Review + Rolls Royce + Reopening + OTSS Read More »

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 17, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

As regards the profits on supply of equipment, the legal position is that the places of negotiation, the place of signing of agreement or formal acceptance thereof or overall responsibility of the assessee are irrelevant circumstances. The only relevant & determinative factor is as to where the property in the goods passes. As the goods were manufactured outside India and the sale has taken place outside India, even in a “composite contract“, the supply has to be segregated from the installation and only then would question of apportionment arise to determine the extent to which it arises in India u/s 9 (1) (i). The department’s argument, based on Roxar Maximum (AAR) & Alstom Transport (AAR) that Ishikawajima-Harima (and Hyundai Heavy Industries 291 ITR 482 (SC)) are “overruled” by the “look at” and not “look through” doctrine in Vodafone 345 ITR 1 (SC) and that composite contracts cannot be split so as to exempt supply profits, is not acceptable

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 13, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

S. 80HH & 80-I do not require maintenance of accounts unit wise and deduction can be claimed on the basis of consolidated accounts. To avoid litigation, the assessee should get the working of unit wise net profits certified by the Chartered Accountant

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 12, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The reason given in the affidavit regarding the arrears outstanding against the assessee is not correct because there were in fact no demands due pursuant to the Tribunal’s order. There is inordinate delay and serious laches on the part of the AO in dealing with the assessee’s application & there is no explanation why the application submitted on 22.06.2009 was taken up for the first time for consideration towards the fag end of FY 2009-10 and rejected on a wrong ground of non-payment of outstanding dues. Such action is in strong>contravention of CBDT’s Circular No.F.No.20/23/67 IT(A-I) which states that application filed by charitable trusts for issuance of Nil/low TDS certificates should be expeditiously processed. The rejection is also in violation of the Court’s earlier order where the department did not raise the stand that the s. 197 certificate could not be issued as the FY was over and instead agreed to consider the issue of the certificate. Obviously the department’s action are not bona fide and does not speak well of its attitude. Mala fides are writ large because new grounds supporting the rejection have been taken in the counter affidavit though such action is not permissible as per Mohinder Singh Gill vs. CEC AIR 1978 SC 851. The Department cannot take advantage of its own inaction and lapses and say that the certificate cannot be issued as the FY is over. Such action would lead to unnecessary complication for the assessee and the parties dealing with it. As held in Dabur India Ltd State of UP AIR 1990 SC 1814, the Govt. cannot be permitted to play “dirty games” with the citizens of the country to coerce them in making payments which the citizens were not legally obliged to make. If any money is due to the Govt., it should take appropriate steps, but it should not take extra legal steps or adopt the course of maneuvering. The Dept. has to be careful in future not to indulge in such avoidable circumstances which create an impression that the intention of the Department is not to help the assessee but to harass them. This matter needs to be inquired into by the concerned CCIT and appropriate action should be initiated against the erring officer

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 11, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Though the High Court’s order was communicated to the department directing a release of the truck without any conditions, the department wrongly demanded 100% cash security and 100% Bond for the said release. The act of issuing show cause notice to avoid giving release is in direct confrontation with the judicial order of the Court. The plea raised with respect to investigation and confiscation is “absolutely frivolous and ridiculous” and has been raised to save from punishment of contempt. Also, the act of justifying the action and simultaneously tendering unqualified apology is a “double faced stance” which is against the settled principle of law. The Asst/Dy Commissioner, Customs, being a senior officer, should have known his limits and by crossing those limits, he has committed gross contempt. He is accordingly punished with simple imprisonment of three months & fine of Rs. 2,000. Also, as the act may constitute “corrupt practice”, the CBEC may consider prosecuting him

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 11, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Explanation 5 to s. 271(1)(c) is a deeming provision which provides that if, in the course of search u/s 132, the assessee is found to be the owner of unaccounted assets and he claims that such assets have been acquired by him by utilizing, wholly or partly, his income for any previous year which has ended before the date of search or which is to end on or after the date of search, then, in such a situation, notwithstanding that such income is declared by him in any return of income furnished on or after the date of search, he shall be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income for the purposes of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Sub-clause (2) confers an immunity from penalty if three conditions are fulfilled, namely, (i) the assessee must make a statement u/s 132(4) in the course of search stating that the unaccounted assets and incriminating documents found from his possession during the search have been acquired out of his income, which has not been disclosed in the return of income to be furnished before expiry of time specified in s. 139(1), (ii) the assessee should specify in the s. 132(4) statement the manner in which such income stood derived and (iii) the tax together with the interest has to be paid. There is no time limit prescribed in the third condition for the payment of the tax & interest. As the assessee had fulfilled the first two conditions and paid the tax & interest (before the completion of the assessment), it was entitled to immunity under Explanation 5 to s. 271(1)(c)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 11, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

S. 35AB provides for the amortisation of any lump sum consideration for acquiring any know-how for use for the purposes of his business in 6 installments. Though because of certain disputes which arose between the parties, the balance amount was not paid by the assessee to the American company, the word “for” in s. 35AB, which is a preposition in English grammar, has to be emphasised while interpreting s. 35AB. S. 35AB says that the expenditure should have been incurred for the purposes of the business of the assessee. The Technical Assistance Agreement was entered into between the assessee and the American company for acquiring know-how which was, in turn, to be used in the business of the assessee. Once s. 35AB comes into play, then s. 37 of the Act has no application