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: November 29, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 5, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: Law laid down in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT 155 ITD 171 (Kol), Rajmandir Estates 386 ITR 162 (Cal) etc that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned cannot be interfered with

The Commissioner of Income Tax had passed an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with the observations that the Assessing Officer did not make any proper inquiry while making the assessment and accepting the explanation of the assessee(s) insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. On that basis the Commissioner of Income Tax had, after setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer, simply directed the Assessing Officer to carry thorough and detailed inquiry. It is this order which is upheld by the High Court. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 22, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 5, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 1987-88
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: The requirement to obtain previous approval of the IAC is mandatory as it is to safeguard the interests of the assessee against arbitrary exercise of power by the AO. Non-compliance may vitiate the penalty order. However, the requirement in s. 274 that the assessee must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard cannot be stretched to the extent of framing a specific charge or asking the assessee an explanation in respect of the quantum of penalty proposed to be imposed

The provision of Section 271(1)(c)(iii) of the Income Tax does not attract the rule of presumption of mens rea and it cannot be equated with the provision in the Criminal Statute. The penalty is for default in complying with the provision, i.e. of furnishing true and correct particulars of the income in the return. The penalty is imposable for breach of the civil obligation. It is only the reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, which is required to be provided to the assessee. The enquiry seems to be of summary in nature, which does not even call for issuance of show cause notice in respect of the quantum of penalty proposed to be imposed. While exercising the discretion in respect of the quantum of penalty, the explanation furnished by the assessee to mitigate the rigour of penalty has to be considered, having regard to the intention of the assessee, if any, to evade the tax, as one of the factors

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: July 13, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 271(1)(c) penalty can be levied only where the charge is unequivocal and unambiguous. The AO must specify whether the charge is of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof and which one of the two is sought to be pressed into service. He is not permitted to club both by interjecting an ‘or’ between the two. The ambiguity in the show-cause notice compounded by the confused finding of the AO that he was satisfied that the assessee was guilty of both renders the proceedings void (K. P. Madhusudhanan 251 ITR 99 (SC) & MAK Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) distinguished

On principle, when penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by the revenue under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the specific ground which forms the foundation therefor has to be spelt out in clear terms. Otherwise, an assessee would not have proper opportunity to put forth his defence. When the proceedings are penal in nature, resulting in imposition of penalty ranging from 100% to 300% of the tax liability, the charge must be unequivocal and unambiguous. When the charge is either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, the revenue must specify as to which one of the two is sought to be pressed into service and cannot be permitted to club both by interjecting an ‘or’ between the two, as in the present case

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: , , ,
DATE: July 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 194H, 201(1): An obligation to deduct TDS u/s 194H arises only if the relationship is that of "principal and agent" and if a "payment" is made. As the relationship between the assessee and the distributor was that of "principal to principal" and as the "discount" did not amount to a "payment", there was no liability to deduct TDS

Taking into account the provisions of Section 182 of the Contract Act and the arrangement which has been entered into between the company and the distributor and taking into account the provisions of Section 194H, the Tribunal while considering the evidence on record, in our considered opinion, has misdirected itself in considering the case from an angle other than the angle which was required to be considered by the Tribunal under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal has travelled beyond the provisions of Section 194H where the condition precedent is that the payment is to be made by the assessee and thereafter he is to make payment. In spite of our specific query to the counsel for the department, it was not pointed out that any amount was paid by the assessee company. It was only the arrangement by which the amount which was to be received was reduced and no amount was paid as commission

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 29, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 263 Revision: Explanation 2 to s. 263 inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 does not override the law as interpreted by the various High Courts whereby it is held that the CIT cannot treat the AO's order as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue without conducting an enquiry and recording a finding. If the Explanation is interpreted otherwise, the CIT will be empowered to find fault with each and every assessment order and also to force the AO to conduct enquiries in the manner preferred by the CIT, thus prejudicing the mind of the AO, This will lead to unending litigation and no finality in the legal proceedings which cannot be the intention of the legislature in inserting the Explanation

The ld PCIT has not referred to Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act which has been inserted with effect from 01.06.2015 however we agree with the finding of the coordinate bench in the case of Narayan Tatu Rane v. Income Tax Officer [(2016) 70 taxmann.com 227], wherein it has been held that Explanation cannot said to have overridden the law as interpreted by the various High Courts, where the High Courts have held that before reaching a conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, the Commissioner himself has to undertake some enquiry to establish that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: November 17, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 2, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Taxability of Gifts u/s 56(2)(vi): A receipt cannot be taxed u/s 56(2)(vi) merely on conjecture or surmises. The AO has to prove beyond doubt that a particular receipt is taxable as income. Merely because the person who paid the amount does not initiate any action for recovery of money is not sufficient for making addition

The AO has observed in his assessment order that SPCL has not taken any action for recovery of the amount, even after lapse of three years from the date of payment. The AO further observed that though the assessee has procured various immovable properties in his personal name, the company has failed to initiate necessary proceedings to get the land procured in their name or return the money given to the assessee. No interest has been charged on money paid to the assessee. All these facts goes to prove undisputed fact that the transactions are not genuine, therefore, the AO opined that impugned amount is taxable under the provisions of section 56(2)(vi) of the Act. We do not find any merit in the findings of the A.O. for the reason that merely because the person, who paid the amount does not initiate any action for recovery of money should not be not a reason for making addition towards amount received as assessee’s income. The AO has to prove beyond doubt a particular receipt is taxable in the given circumstances within the meaning of the said provision

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 15, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 2, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Undisclosed income found in search: Law on whether statement obtained u/s 132(4) admitting earning of undisclosed income, which is allegedly retracted, can be used for making assessment explained in the light of P.V. Kalyanasundaram 294 ITR 49 (SC), S. Kadar Khan 352 ITR 480 (SC) and CBDT’s Circular

From the above, it is apparent that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)’s reliance upon the so called retraction of the admission during search is not cogent. Similarly, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reliance upon the CBDT Circular of not obtaining confession is also out of place. It is clear that the registers were found which clearly detailed about undocumented surgeries performed by Dr. Ashok Chopra and unaccounted cash receipts. Based upon this Dr. Ashok Chopra has admitted offer of Rs.1.74 crores. Dr. Ashok Chopra had also accepted the working of this figure. As already noted there was never any retraction whatsoever by Dr. Ashok Chopra. The said admission of Dr. Ashok Chopra was also duly accepted and corroborated by Smt. Madhu Chopra, the director of the company. Under these circumstances, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)’s contradictory acceptance that no incriminating documents were found, is not at all acceptable

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: November 16, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 14A/ Rule 8D: Imp principles law down reg (i) disallowance for single segment companies being investors and dealers in shares and having to incur all business expenses under normal circumstances, (ii) strategic investments, (iii) securities held as stock-in-trade, (iv) inclusion of securities which have not yielded any exempt income and (v) whether diminution in value of securities constitutes "expenditure" for disallowance

Strategic investments/stock in trade have to be excluded for computing disallowance under 14A. The AO should keep in mind that the assessee is a single segment company being an investor and dealer in shares & securities and consequently all the business expenses ought to have been incurred towards this segment under normal circumstances unless otherwise shown

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 23, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 276C/277 Prosecution: Submission that claim of depreciation on land was a “mere clerical mistake” is not acceptable if the assessee did not file a revised return to correct the alleged mistake. A claim in a return which is scrutinized by the auditors and the directors cannot be considered as a mere accounting mistake

It is a manifest procedure that before filing of the Income Tax return for the assessment year 2007-2008 by the petitioner, the same is scrutinized, firstly, by the auditors of the company. Secondly, by the directors of the company before endorsing their signatures on the final Balance Sheet. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a mere accounting mistake

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 14, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: In the case of credit as share capital by corporate entity, whose existence is shown by its registration with Registrar of companies and its filing of tax returns, adverse conclusion is not justified merely because its directors are not produced personally before the AO by the assessee. The AO has to demonstrate with specific evidence that the assessee has in reality obtained accommodation entries by showing cash deposits linked to the investors

Section 68 casts the initial burden of proof on the assesse to show prima facie and to explain the nature and source of credit found in its books. When the statute places the burden of proof in income tax cases on the tax payer, it is understood to be only the initial burden. When the tax payer explains the credit by providing evidence of identity, confirmation and credit worthiness, the burden shifts on the revenue to show that the explanation is not satisfactory or incorrect. In the case of credit as share capital by corporate entity, whose existence is shown by its registration with Registrar of companies and its filing of tax returns, adverse conclusion is not justified merely because its directors are not produced personally before the assessing officer by the tax payer

Read more ›