Case Law: Rajat Exports Import (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

68 Bogus share capital: Failure by the AO to offer cross-examination of the persons whose statements are relied upon means that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee. Dept’s plea for a remand is not acceptable if the assessee has discharged primary onus (Nova Promoters 342 ITR 169 (Del) & Jansampark Advertising 375 ITR 373 (Del) distinguished). Paradise Inland 98 CCH 0417 followed

The assessee was supplied with the seized material at the fag end of the assessment proceedings and assessee sought opportunity to cross examine these persons for rebuttal of the allegation. However, the AO did not provide any opportunity to the assessee to cross examine these persons on behalf of assessee to find out the truth. Therefore, such statements cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. We rely upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chelaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) and of Bombay High Court in case of Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt. Ltd Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Case Law: State Bank Of India vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

147: The computation of income is the basic document for making the s. 143(3) assessment. If there is a disclosure in the computation, it leads to the prima facie necessary inference that there is application of mind by the AO. The fact that the AO did not raise specific queries & is silent in the assessment order does not mean there is no application of mind (Techspan 404 ITR 10(SC) followed, other contra judgements distinguished)

There was also no reason in the present facts for the Assessing Officer to ask any queries in respect of this claim of the petitioner, as the basic document viz. computation of income at note 21 (Assessment Year 2013-14) and note 22 (Assessment Year 2014-15) thereof explained the basis of the claim being made to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. Thus, it must necessarily be inferred that the Assessing Officer has applied his mind at the time of passing an assessment order to this particular claim made in the basic document viz. computation of the income by not disallowing it in proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act as he was satisfied with the basis of the claim as indicated in that very document. Therefore, where he accepts the claim made, the occasion to ask questions on it will not arise nor does it have to be indicated in the order passed in the regular assessment proceedings. Thus, issuing the impugned notices on the above ground would, prima-facie, amount to a change of opinion Read the rest of this entry »

Case Law: ITO vs. Sudarshan R. Kharbanda (ITAT Mumbai)

80-IC: Law on whether “assembly” constitutes “manufacture” explained in the context of several judgements. Allegation of the Dept that manufacture is not possible as the assessee has less number of employees, no sophisticated machinery and less electricity consumption considered

So far as, the general tests for manufacture/ production are concerned, we find that manufacturing and processing are not clearly demarcated field. The test of manufacture lies in the answer to the question whether what is processed or produced as end product is commercially known as a different product from the material out of which it was so produced. Therefore, if the product has a different name and identified by the buyers and seller as a different product and is sold as a different product from its raw material one can say that it is a manufactured product Read the rest of this entry »

Case Law: Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

271C & 206AA Penalty: The assessee has made out a prima facie case that the outcome of the appeal before the ITAT will directly impact the penalty proceedings which are hurriedly being finalized by the authorities which may entail huge liability by way of penalty on the assessee. The Revenue authorities are accordingly restrained from passing any order imposing penalty on the assessee so long as the appeal is pending before the Tribunal (Wander 44 Taxman.com 103 (Bom) & GE India Technology 46 Taxmann.com 374 (Guj) followed)

So far as the penalty proceedings are concerned, the assessee has made out a prima facie case in favour of the assessee proving that the outcome of the appeal before ITAT will directly impact the proceedings which are hurriedly being finalized by the authorities below, which may entail huge liability by way of penalty on the assessee. In our opinion, so long as the appeal is pending before the Tribunal, the Revenue authorities should be restrained from passing any order imposing penalty on the assessee u/s 271C and 206AA of the Act however the proceedings may continue Read the rest of this entry »

The Marwari way of Business, Finance and Accounting

This article showcases the origin of the Marwari way of business and how it shone to prominence during British Era. Read the rest of this entry »

Case Law: Bhojison Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)

2(14)/ 28(va): The “right to sue” which arises on breach of a development agreement is a “personal right” and not a “capital asset” which can be transferred. Consequently, the damages received for relinquishment of the “right to sue” is a non-taxable capital receipt (all judgements considered)

A development agreement was executed which enabled the assessee to utilize the land for construction and for sharing of profits. This right/advantage accrued to the assessee was sought to be taken away from the assessee by way of sale of land. The prospective purchaser as well as the defaulting party (owner) perceived threat of filing suit by developer and consequently paid damages/ compensation to shun the possible legal battle. The intrinsic point with respect to accrual of ‘right to sue’ has to be seen in the light of overriding circumstances as to how the parties have perceived the presence of looming legal battle from their point of view. I t is an admitted position that the defaulting party has made the assessee a confirming party in the sale by virtue of such development agreement and a compensation was paid to avoid litigation. This amply shows the existence of ‘right to sue’ in the perception of the defaulting party. Read the rest of this entry »

Case Law: Oricon Enterprises Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

S.2(42C)/ 50B: A transaction by which an undertaking is transferred in consideration of the allottment of shares is an “exchange” and not a “sale”. The fact that the agreement refers to the parties as “seller” and “purchaser” is irrelevant. S. 2(42C)/ 50B apply only to “sale” and not to “exchange”. Entire law on “estoppel” explained. As there is no estoppel against a statute, an assessee is entitled to raise the claim regarding non-taxability at any stage of the proceedings

In the present case the consideration was not money but equity shares and debentures and hence the transaction was not a “Sale” but an “Exchange” and consequently, the provisions of Section 50B of the I.T. Act, are not attracted. In the case of CIT vs. Bharat Bijlee Ltd. (365 ITR 258) where an undertaking was transferred under a Scheme of Arrangement to a company which allotted preference shares and bonds as consideration to the Transferor company. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Motor & General Stores (P) Ltd. (66 ITR 692), the jurisdictional High Court held that the provisions of section 50B were inapplicable to the transaction Read the rest of this entry »