-
S. 68 Bogus loans: The assessee is not required to explain the "source of source" prior to insertion of the proviso to s. 68. If the assessee has discharged the primary onus placed upon it u/s 68 by filing confirmation letters, the Affidavits, the full address and pan numbers of the creditors, the Revenue has to proceed against the persons whose source of funds are alleged to be not genuine
Pr. CIT. vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14801 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 68
-
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. 147 Reopening: Passing the reassessment order before the expiry of 4 weeks of passing the order of objections renders the reassessment order void. Also, if the reasons state “bogus accommodation entries were provided/taken” and it is not clear whether the assessee has received or provided accommodation entries, it means there is no application of mind by the AO while recording reasons
Meta Plast Engineering P. Ltd. vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14786 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 147
-
S. 9(1)(i)/ 40(a)(i): Entire law on whether commission paid by an Indian entity to foreign agents can be said to accrue in India and whether the assessee is obliged to deduct TDS thereon u/s 195 explained. All relevant judgements and CBDT Circulars Nos.7 dated 22.10.2009, 23 dated 23 July 1969, 163 dated 29th May 1975 and 786 dated 7th February 2000 considered
ACIT. Vs. Manufax (India) S.B.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14785 (ITAT-AGRA) · Sections. 9(1)(i), 40(a)(i)
-
Strictures passed against Dept's Advocate for "most unreasonable attitude" of seeking to reargue settled concluded issues. This results in unnecessary wastage of the scarce judicial time available in the context of the large number of the appeals awaiting consideration. Dept's Advocate are expected to act with responsibility as an Officer of the Court and not merely argue for the sake of arguing when an issue is clearly covered by the decision of Co- ordinate Bench of the Court and take up scarce judicial time. Advocates must bear in mind that this is a Court of law and not an University/College debating Society, where debates are held for academic stimulation. We deal with real life disputes and decide them in accordance with the Rule of Law, of which an important limb is uniformity of application of law. This on the basis of judicial discipline and law of precedents
Pr CIT. Vs. JWC Logistics Park Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14769 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 40(3) Wealth-tax: Law on whether Parliament has legislative competence to tax land and buildings which are in List-II of the 7th Schedule and whether the classification of "companies in which the public are not substantially interested" is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution explained (Imp constitutional law principles laid down)
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. vs. IAC
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14768 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 40(3)
-
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
-
ITAT - Deduction u/s. 80IB(10) - no benefit could be allowed to projects approved prior to 01st April 2004, the said error/mistake cannot be allowed to be perpetuated as there is no heroism in perpetuating the mistake is a cardinal principle of jurisprudence.
ITO-3 (2) (4) , Mumbai Versus M/s. Omega Investment And Properties Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14749 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=62934&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
Strictures passed against the Dept for confronting, showing resentment and displeasure to the Tribunal for granting interim stay against recovery of demand. The Dept is showing open defiance of, disrespect of, or of open resentment to, orders of the Tribunal, which may prove be very dangerous for the sanctity of the courts of law/Justice dispensation system of the country. Costs imposed on dept
ITO (Exemptions) vs. Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14717 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
-
S. 292-B: A s. 148 notice issued in the name of a company which does not exist upon its conversion into a LLP is valid if there is material to show that the issue in the name of the company was a clerical mistake. The object and purpose behind s. 292-B is to ensure that technical pleas on the ground of mistake, defect or omission should not invalidate the assessment proceedings, when no confusion or prejudice is caused due to non-observance of technical formalities
Skylight Hospitality LLP vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14716 (SC) · Section. 292-B
-
Tax Recovery: CBDT should investigate arm twisting measures, dehors application of the law, adopted by the Revenue for recovery of tax and take corrective measures to ensure AOs are not overzealous in recovering maximum revenue before 31st March. Once the CIT(A) concludes hearing the appeal, the stay application becomes infructuous. The exercise by CIT(A) of taking up the stay application, after the appeal was heard, was only done so as to collect some revenue before 31st March, 2018. This is certainly not expected of an Appellate Authority who adjudicates disputes between the Revenue and the Assessee on a regular basis. The CIT(A) must not only be fair but appear to be so, in a country governed by Rule of law.
The Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) vs. UOI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14678 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 145(3): Entire law explained explained on whether if the AO rejects the books of account, he can rely on the entries in the books to make disallowances u/s 40A(3) and s. 68 and also make additions for "peak credit". All judgements on the point considered
Deepak Mittal vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14673 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 145(3)
-
S. 9(1)(vi) Royalty: Domain name is an intangible asset which is similar to trademark. Consequently, income from services rendered in connection with such domain name registration is assessable as "royalty" u/s 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act
Godaddy.com LLC vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14672 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 9(1)(vi)
-
S. 194-H/201 TDS Liability: Law on whether relationship is that of "principal and agent" and whether payment is of the nature of "commission" explained. Non-compliance of s. 194H attracts the rigor of s. 201 which provides for consequences of failure to deduct or pay the tax. Jagran Prakashan vs. DCIT 345 ITR 288 (All) distinguished on facts
The Director, Prasar Bharati vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14671 (SC) · Sections. 194-H, 201
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: The assessee set up a devise to introduce unaccounted money through various shell companies in the form of share capital at a premium. The manner of issue of the shares through these companies, the manner of providing confirmation on the letter pad, the manner of maintaining the annual accounts and the manner of submitting the bank accounts on the letter pad or on a computerized print out to give it a semblance of originality to defraud the revenue shows the whole picture how the accommodation entries are routed through shell companies as share capital to evade taxes
Shaan Construction P Ltd. vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14653 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 68
-
S. 279 Prosecution for late deposit of TDS offense: Principles applicable to launching prosecution set out. If the assessee is able to make out that cognizance was not justified and as per law they can challenge and question the summoning order by way of petition u/s 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or if permissible, by way of a petition under Section 482 of the Code
Indo Arya Central Transport Limited vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14652 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 279
-
HC- Writ Allowed - Delay in filing return owing to the delay in carrying out tax audit is to be condoned.
REGEN Powertech Private Ltd. Vs. CBDT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14641 (HC-MADRAS)
-
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)
-
ITAT - In absence of knowledge made available as per Article 12(4) of India-Netherlands DTAA, payment made to Netherlands company cannot be considered as fees for technical services. No TDS u/s 195 for testing fees paid to Netherlands company.
Areva T & D India Limited (Now Alstom India T & D India Ltd) Vs. Ass. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14638 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.