-
S. 254(2) r.w Rule 34(5): Excessive delay by the Tribunal in passing judgement shakes the confidence of the litigants. Under Rule 34(5) of the Tribunal Rules read with Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant 317 ITR 433 (Bom) & Otters Club (Bom), orders have to be passed invariably within three months of the completion of hearing of the case. The delay is incurable. Even administrative clearance cannot cure the delay. Such decisions rendered after 3 months reflect a mistake apparant from the record and have to be recalled and the appeals heard afresh
Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14958 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 254(2)
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: The assessee has to justify the allottment of shares to outsiders at exorbitant premium with cogent material and not bald statements. The fact that s. 56(2)(viib) r.w.s. 2(24)(xvi) comes into effect from AY 2013-14 does not mean that for earlier years the assessee is not required to justify the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction. The burden is very high for closely held companies. Mere submission of name & address, Balance Sheet & bank statement of the subscribers is not sufficient to discharge the onus (all judgements on the point considered)
Pratik Syntex Private Ltd. vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14957 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 68
-
S. 69C Bogus Purchases (100% disallowance confirmed): The right of cross-examination is not absolute. No prejudice is caused to the assessee by non granting of cross examination if the assessee has not discharged the primary onus. The fact that purchase bills are produced and payment is made through banking channels is not sufficient if the other evidence is lacking
Soman Sun Citi vs. JCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14956 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 69C
-
S. 56(2)(viib) Fair Market Value of shares transferred: Rule 11UA allows the assessee the right to adopt the method of his choice for valuing shares (DCF, NAV etc). The AO has no jurisdiction to insist that the assessee should adopt only a particular method for determining the value of the shares. AOs should not deviate from earlier years’ decisions without assigning any concrete and justifiable reasons. Tax determination cannot be left to whims and fancies of a person. It is a serious task and has to be accomplished in a disciplined manner. If an assessee has been allowed a certain concession in earlier year/(s) it cannot be withdrawn in subsequent years without plausible reasons
DCIT. Vs. Ozoneland Agro Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14933 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. S. 56(2)(viib)
-
Section 271(1)(c): No penalty can be imposed when the addition to income has been made on the basis of estimation
Tuta Lakshmana Rao vs. ITO ITA No.: 393/Viz/2016
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14922 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Sections 48 & 49: Value of tenancy rights needs to be considered for the purpose of determining the cost of acquisition
ACIT vs. Shree Krishna Pharmacy ITA No. 3947/Mum/2016
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14921 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 48 & 49
-
Section 40(a)(ia) – Second proviso – Retrospective or prospective
DCIT v. Jagjit Singh Sayal (through legal heir)
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14913 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 40(a)(ia)
-
S. 253(5) r.w.s. 252(1): The Registrar of the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider and decide on applications for condonation of delay. Only the Court/ Tribunal have the power. The order passed by the Registrar is ultra vires his power and non est in law. He should desist from passing such orders
In Re Hiten Ramanlal Mahimtura
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14889 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 253(5)
-
ITAT - Exemption u/s 11 allowed as activities of the trust were directed for promoting its objects of vegetarianism and distribution of Prasadam to the general public to promote Lord Krishna consciousness.
ITO. Vs. Radha Damodar Charitable Trust
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14860 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Bogus Purchases: The fact that the supplier admitted to issuing bogus bills does not necessarily mean that he had issued accommodation bills to the assessee. There is subtle but very important difference in issuing bogus bills and issuing accommodation bills to a particular party. The difference becomes very important when a supplier in his affidavit admits supply of goods. As far as sales are concerned there is no doubt about the genuineness of such sales. It is also a fact that suppliers were paying VAT and were filing their returns of income. In response to the notices issued by the AO u/s 133(6) of the Act, the supplier admitted the genuineness of the transaction. Accordingly, the purchases cannot be treated as bogus
Shantivijay Jewels Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14787 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 133A: An admission of estimated income made during survey has no evidentiary value and is not binding on the assessee. The income has to be assessed as per the return of income and books of account. Hiralal Maganlal 97 TTJ Mum 377 distinguished. CBDT Circular No. 286/2/2003 (Inv.) II dated 10.03.2003 referred
Amod Shivlal Shah vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14753 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 133A
-
Family Arrangement: It is not necessary for the validity of a family arrangement that there must be existing legal claims & disputes between the family members. The possibility of future disputes is sufficient. Family settlements entered into bona fide to maintain peace and harmony in the family are valid and binding on the authorities
Kunal R. Gupta vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14640 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Entire law on what constitutes a "Sham transaction"/ "Colourable device" explained. The sale of shares in a pvt ltd co by the assessee to a relative (son) in order to book losses so as to set-off the capital gains from on sale of property cannot be rejected as a sham transaction / colourable device if the transaction is within the four corners of law and valid
Madhu Sarda vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14639 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: The fact that a pvt. ltd co issued shares at an exorbitant premium is irrelevant if the assessee has proved the genuineness of the transaction. If the assessee has furnished necessary evidence to prove the identity of the share applicants and their PAN details, the department is free to proceed to reopen the individual assessments of the share applicants but it cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee
DCIT. vs. Alcon Biosciences P Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14607 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 68
-
Bogus Purchases: The fact that s. 133(6) notices could not be served upon the alleged vendors and they were not physically available at the given addresses does not falsify the claim of the assessee that the purchases are genuine if the assessee has produced other evidence and made payments through banking channels
Prabhat Gupta vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14454 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 133(6)
-
ITAT - Since no credit is allowable on ‘input tax credit’ relatable to exempt services, the ineligible input tax credit so charged to P&L A/c. is allowable as deduction even though assessee follows ‘Exclusive method’ for accounting of Service tax.
Morgan Stanley (India) Capital Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dy. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14435 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 263: Even if there is lack of inquiry by the AO and the assessment order is "erroneous" under Explanation 2 to s. 263, the order is not "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" because Fringe Benefit Tax is not "tax" as defined in s. 2(43) and cannot be disallowed u/s 40(a)(v) or added back to "Book Profits" u/s 115JB
Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14328 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 263
-
ITAT - Provision of section 206AA will not have an overriding effect over the provisions of the 1961 Act and if the provision of DTAA are beneficial to the assessee they will override provisions of Section 206AA by virtue of provisions of Section 90(2).
ITO (IT) 1 (1) (2) , Mumbai Versus Atos Worldwide India Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14264 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=61556&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 68: If an admission of undisclosed income is made by the assessee after reference to the material found during search and seizure, it cannot be said that the admission is not based on incriminating material. The retraction of such admission of undisclosed income is not permissible especially when the retraction is by the mother and not by the assessee
Priyanka Chopra vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14232 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 68
-
S. 271(1)(c) penalty: If the AO has not recorded any satisfaction in absolute terms whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, the levy of penalty is invalid. The judgement of the Bombay High Court in Maharaj Garage cannot be read out of context or in a manner to mean that there is no need for mentioning the specific limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act for which the penalty was intended to be imposed, as such issue never came up for consideration before the High Court
Indrani Sunil Pillai vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14205 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 271(1)(c)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.