-
S. 260A Low Tax Effect Circular: Very strange request by the Dept is an attempt to get over the binding Circulars. We shall not allow the Revenue to get over them in this manner. The Circulars continue to bind the Revenue and if they contain any conditions, whether such conditions are attracted or not would have to be proved and established by the Revenue
PCIT vs. Nawany Construction Co. Pvt Ltd
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15803 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 260A
-
Gain arising to the assessee on account of securitization of lease receivables and credited to the Profit & Loss Account is a taxable receipt in the year of securitisation as per T. V. Sunderam Iyengar 222 ITR 344 (SC). Argument that the entry represents hypothetical income and not real income and that the amount is assessable in subsequent years on receivable basis is not correct. Question of whether income can also be deferred to subsequent years under the "Matching concept" as per Taparia Tools 260 ITR 102 (Bom)/ 372 ITR 605 (SC) left open
L&T Finance Limited vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15797 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Strictures against CA for certifying bogus accounts with a view to mislead bankers. The matter is typical of how business is conducted in this country and why loans obtained from banks remain unpaid. The ITAT may only be faulted for not reporting the CA to the ICAI for having apparently abetted in the commission of a colossal act of misrepresentation. ICAI directed to look into the matter and take necessary action
Binod Kumar Agarwala vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15796 (HC-CALCUTTA)
-
S. 263(1) obligates the CIT to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard before passing of his order. While the CIT is entitled to consider a point which is not stated in the show-cause notice, he cannot pass the revision order unless the assessee is given the opportunity of being heard. Such an order is untenable in the eyes of law (Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) followed)
Ambuja Cements Limited vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15795 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 263(1)
-
S. 276(C)(1) Prosecution for bogus transaction: If a stay application is filed before the CIT(A) to seek a stay of the assessment order, during the pendency of such application, the criminal prosecution should not be launched and, if it has been already launched, the same shall not proceed
Ramchandran Ananthan Pothi vs. UOI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15775 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 276(C)(1)
-
S. 68 Bogus Capital Gains From Penny Stocks: The share transaction is genuine because it is supported by contract notes, bills, were carried out through recognized stockbroker of the Stock Exchange and all payments made to, and received from, the stockbroker, were through account payee instruments. A transaction fully supported by documentary evidences cannot be brushed aside on suspicion and surmises
CIT vs. Alpine Investments
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15774 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section 68
-
S. 194-H TDS: The law in Idea Cellular 325 ITR 148 (Del) that there is a principal-agent relationship between the telecom company and the dealers does not mean that a similar relationship can be inferred between the dealers and the sub-dealers. The incentive paid by the dealers to sub-dealers cannot be equated with commission as stipulated u/s194H and so there is no requirement for deducting TDS
Rakesh Kumar vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15773 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 194-H
-
S. 68 Bogus capital gains from penny stocks: Reliance by AO on statements recorded by the Investigation Wing to conclude that the capital gains are bogus without giving an opportunity of cross examination is a complete violation of principles of natural justice as held in CCE Vs Andaman Timber Industries 127 DTR 241(SC). The AO has not controverted the evidence of purchase bills, payment of consideration through bank, DEMAT account, allotment of amalgamated shares, sale of shares through stock exchange at prevailing price, payment of STT etc
DCIT vs. Saurabh Mittal
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15756 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
-
S. 2(47)/ 54: Though an unregistered agreement to sell does not entitle the parties to seek part performance u/s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it can be a basis for a suit for specific performance in view of s. 49 of the Registration Act. Consequently, even an unregistered agreement creates a right in favour of the buyer and constitutes a "transfer" of the old property u/s 2(47) for purposes of determining whether the purchase of the new property is within one year of the date of "transfer" of the old property
Gautam Jhunjhunwala vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15755 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Sections 2(47), 54
-
S. 147/ 56(2)(vii): Law explained on (i) reopening of assessment by issue of s. 148 notice at the 11th hour and based on "stale" material, (ii) nature of sanction to be accorded by the CIT u/s 151 and (iii) scope of s. 56(2)(vii) and whether difference between 'fair market value' and face value of unquoted shares can be assessed as income. All important judgements referred
Sonia Gandhi vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15754 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 56(2)(vii), 147
-
ITAT - Adhoc disclosure was shown in the return with a rider that any undisclosed entry/income/transaction worked during the course of the block assessment proceedings will be set off against this Adhoc disclosure - Appellant entitled for the legitimate claim.
SHREE KANTIBHAI REVABHAI PRAJAPATI VERSUS THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (4), AHMEDABAD
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15729 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66800&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Exemption u/s. 54 allowed even though the agreement to sell is not registered, since the vendee can seek decree of specific performance on the basis of unregistered agreement to sell.
GAUTAM JHUNJHUNWALA VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-25 (4), KOLKATA
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15728 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66804&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - ITAT order remanding the matter to CIT(A) in respect of nature of non compete fee received not valid as there was no sufficient material before the Tribunal to remand the case for a fresh consideration at the first instance.
K. RAJIV VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-3, CHENNAI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15727 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=74132&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Though s. 206C does not impose any limitation period for the AO to hold the assessee to be in default for collection of tax at source, a reasonable time limit of four years has to be read into the statute. Orders passed after this period are beyond the limitation and are void. The fact that the Dept became aware of the default later is irrelevant. The fact that the assessee admitted his liability is also irrelevant
ITO vs. Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15726 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 206C
-
Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks: If the transaction is supported by documents like contract notes, demat statements etc and is routed through the stock exchange and if the payments are by account-payee cheques and there is no evidence that the cash has gone back to the assessee's account, it has to be treated as a genuine transaction and cannot be assessed as unexplained credit
CIT vs. Pooja Agarwal
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15725 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
-
ITAT - Depreciation claimed at the rate of 60% (applicable to “computer software”) on design software allowed once the CIT(A) held the purchase made by the assessee company is a design software.
WAYNE BURT PETROCHEMICALS (P) LTD, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. BAILEY HYDROPOWER PVT. LTD) VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE I (2)
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15724 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66775&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Since the disposal of appeals are delayed on the default of the assessee, it is not a fit case for grant of stay.
QUIPPO TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS QUIPPO TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED) VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-19 (1), NEW DELHI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15723 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66778&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Where all the three conditions as required u/s. 68 were placed before the AO then the onus shifted to the AO to disprove the materials placed before him. Without doing so, the addition made is based only on conjectures and surmises. Not valid.
ITO, WARD-12 (3), KOLKATA VERSUS M/S SPLENDOUR VILLA MAKERS PVT. LTD.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15722 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66783&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 272A(1)(c) Penalty: The argument that penalty u/s 272A(1)(c) can be levied only for non-compliance of s. 131(1) and not s. 131(IA) is not correct because s. 131(1A) has to be read with s. 131(1). On facts, the penalty is justified because the conduct of the assessee is not bona fide. There is deliberate and complete defiance to the summons issued u/s 131(1A)
Young Indian vs. ADIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15713 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 131(1), 272A(1)(c)
-
A co-operative housing Society is not expected to indulge into profiteering business from its members. Transfer fees cannot be charged under the pretext of "voluntary donation". Amount which is accepted above permissible limits towards transfer fee is illegal and taxable as income in the hands of the society
Alankar Sahkari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit vs. Atul Mahadev Bhagat
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15712 (HC-BOMBAY)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.