Home › › Page 9

Search Results For: 68

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 1, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 9, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2012-13
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: Share application money cannot be treated as unexplained credit if the AO does not make any investigation on the documentary evidences filed by the assessee or ask for the production of the investors for examination u/s 131 or if adverse material is found during search to prove that share application money is bogus or an arranged affair of the assessee

The A.O. however, did not make any further enquiry on the documents filed by the assessee-company. The A.O. thus, failed to conduct any enquiry and scrutiny of the documents at assessment stage and merely suspected the transaction between the Investor Company and assessee-company because the Investor Company was from Kolkata. The A.O. thus, did not perform his duties at the assessment stage so as to make addition against the assessee-company. No cash was found deposited in the account of the Investor. Therefore, the totality of the facts and circumstances clearly prove that assessee-company discharged initial onus to prove identity of the Investor Company, its creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 10, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 16, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus LTCG from Penny stocks: The assessee has not tendered cogent evidence to explain how the shares in an unknown company worth Rs.5 had jumped to Rs.485 in no time. The fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis to justify the price rise. the assessee had indulged in a dubious share transaction meant to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain. The gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed credit u/s 68

The assessee had indulged in a dubious share transaction meant to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain. While so observing, the authorities held that the assessee had not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how the shares in an unknown company worth Rs.5/had jumped to Rs.485/in no time. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis as to how a share worth Rs.5/of a little known company would jump from Rs.5/to Rs.485/. The findings recorded by the authorities are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the material on record. While recording the said findings, the authorities have followed the tests laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions

Read more ›

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: 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 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 ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 10, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 28, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68 Bogus share capital: Companies which invest share capital cannot be treated as bogus if they are registered and have been assessed. Once the assessee has produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of such companies, the burden shifts to the Revenue to establish their case. Reliance on statements of third parties who have not been subjected to cross examination is not permissible. Voluminous documents produced by the assessee cannot be discarded merely on the basis of statements of individuals contrary to such public documents

This Court in the Judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, have come to the conclusion that once the Assessee has produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of such Companies, the burden would shift on the Revenue-Appellants herein to establish their case. In the present case, the Appellants are seeking to rely upon the statements recorded of two persons who have admittedly not been subjected to cross examination. In such circumstances, the question of remanding the matter for re-examination of such persons, would not at all be justified. The Assessing Officer, if he so desired, ought to have allowed the Assessee to cross examine such persons in case the statements were to be relied upon in such proceedings. Apart from that, the voluminous documents produced by the Respondents cannot be discarded merely on the basis of two individuals who have given their statements contrary to such public documents

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 68: In the absence of any direct evidence demonstrating that the assessee received cash payment, no addition can be made merely on presumption and surmises and on estimate basis. For making the addition on account of cash component, it is the duty of the AO to bring on record corroborative evidence to establish the fact that the entries made in the seized document were correct

The Assessing Officer has not brought on record any clinching evidence on the basis of any enquiry made by him to demonstrate that the assessee has actually received any cash as per the evaluation sheet from Matrix. Therefore, in the absence of any direct evidence demonstrating that the assessee had received cash payment from Matrix, as shown in the evaluation sheet, no addition can be made merely on presumption and surmises and on estimate basis. For making the addition on account of cash component, it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to bring on record corroborative evidence to establish the fact that the entries made in the evaluation sheet were correct

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 18, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2005-06
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus capital gains from penny stocks: If the DMAT account and contract note show details of the share transactions and the AO has not proved the transactions to be bogus, the capital gains earned on the said transactions cannot be treated as unaccounted income u/s 68. The fact that the broker was tainted and violated SEBI regulations would not make assessee’s transactions bogus

The AO has treated the share transaction as bogus on the plea that SEBI has initiated investigation in respect of Ramkrishna Fincap Pvt. Ltd. The AO further stated that investigation revealed that transaction through M/s Periwal and Co. on the floor of stock exchange was more than 83%. We found that as far as initiation of investigation of broker is concerned, the assessee is no way concerned with the activity of the broker. Detailed finding has been recorded by CIT(A) to the effect that assessee has made investment in shares which was purchased on the floor of stock exchange and not from M/s Basant Periwal and Co. Against purchases payment has been made by account payee cheque, delivery of shares were taken, contract of sale was also complete as per the Contract Act, therefore, the assessee is not concerned with any way of the broker. Nowhere the AO has alleged that the transaction by the assessee with these particular broker or share was bogus, merely because the investigation was done by SEBI against broker or his activity, assessee cannot be said to have entered into ingenuine transaction, insofar as assessee is not concerned with the activity of the broker and have no control over the same

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 11, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 15, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2002-03
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 153A: Argument of the Dept that the law laid down in Continental
Warehousing/ All Cargo Global Logistics 374 ITR 645 (Bom) that assessment u/s 153A can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found in the search and no other issue can be taken is per incuriam in view of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers 291 ITR 500 (SC) is not correct. Bhola Shankar Cold Storage 270 ITR 487 (Cal) distinguished

The argument of Mr. Ahuja is that the view taken by the Tribunal based on its Special Bench decision in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Central Circle44, [2012] 23 Taxman.Com 103 (Mum.) (SB) cannot be said to be correct. Mr. Ahuja’s argument is that though the assessee is heavily relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of IncomeTax v. (1) Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. and (2) All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Reported in [2015] 374 ITR 645 (Bom), still, the questions proposed by the Revenue in these Appeals ought to be entertained. These are substantial questions of law and the Division Bench judgment in Continental Warehousing Corporation and All Cargo Global Logistics (supra) is rendered in ignorance of a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) (Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited).

Read more ›