Case Law: Abicor and Binzel Technoweld Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

GST Network: The regime is not tax friendly. GST was highly publicised and termed as popular but there has been great hue and cry because assessees are unable to obtain access to the GST website. Those in charge of implementation and administration must wake up and put in place the requisite mechanism to preserve the image, prestige and reputation of this country, particularly when we are inviting and welcoming foreign investment in the State and the country

We do not think that these are satisfactory state of affairs. A tax like Goods and Services Tax was highly publicised and termed as popular. We had yet not seen a celebration of New Tax regime, but that has followed with great hue and cry. These celebrations mean nothing. The special sessions of Parliament or special or extraordinary meetings of Council would mean nothing to the assessees unless they obtain easy access to the website and portals. The regime is not tax friendly. We hope and trust that those in charge of implementation and administration of this law will at least now wake up and put in place the requisite mechanism. This is necessary to preserve the image, prestige and reputation of this country, particularly when we are inviting and welcoming foreign investment in the State and the country. We hope and trust that such petitions are rarity and the Court will not be called upon to administer the implementation of the law, leave alone monitoring and supervising the working of the individual officials, howsoever high ranking he may be Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

Case Law: Seema Sabharwal vs. ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)

S. 54: If agreement for purchase of new residential house is made and entire purchase price is paid within three years from the date of transfer of the old asset, exemption u/s 54 is available. It is not required that the house must be completed within 3 years. The requirement in s. 54(2) that the capital gains should be deposited in the CGAS scheme is merely an enabling provision. If the assessee shows during assessment proceedings that the capital gains have been reinvested in the new residential house, exemption cannot be denied merely the amount was not deposited in the CGAS

If the assessee at the time of assessment proceedings, proves that he has already invested the capital gains on the purchase / construction of the new residential house within the stipulated period, the benefit under the substantive provisions of section 54(1) cannot be denied to the assessee. Any different or otherwise strict construction of sub section (2), in our view, will defeat the very purpose and object of the exemption provisions of section 54 of the Act Read the rest of this entry »

Case Law: Pr CIT vs. Shree Gopal Housing & Plantation Corporation (Bombay High Court)

S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: The law in Nayan Builders 368 ITR 722 (Bom) does not mean as a matter of rule that in case where the High Court admits an appeal relating to quantum proceedings ipso facto i.e. without anything more, the penalty order gets vitiated. The question of entertaining an appeal from an order imposing / deleting penalty would have to be decided on a case to case basis. There can be no universal rule to the effect that no penalty can be levied if quantum appeal is admitted on a substantial question of law

Each appeal in respect of the order deleting / imposing a penalty by the Tribunal would have to be considered in relation to the facts arising therein and also in the quantum proceedings. It cannot be said as a matter of rule that in case where this Court admits an appeal relating to quantum proceedings ipso facto i.e. without anything more, the penalty order get vitiated. Thus, the question of entertaining an appeal from an order imposing / deleting penalty would have to be decided on a case to case basis. There can be no universal rule to the effect that no penalty, if quantum appeal is admitted on a substantial question of law Read the rest of this entry »

25 years of professional services

SKA 25 years

Case Law: National Travel Service vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

S. 2(22)(e) Deemed Dividend: The term “shareholder”, post amendment, has only to be a person who is the beneficial owner of shares. One cannot be a registered owner and beneficial owner in the sense of a beneficiary of a trust or otherwise at the same time. The moment there is a shareholder, who need not necessarily be a member of the Company on its register, who is the beneficial owner of shares, the Section gets attracted without more. To state that two conditions have to be satisfied, namely, that the shareholder must first be a registered shareholder and thereafter, also be a beneficial owner is not only mutually contradictory but is plainly incorrect. Prima facie, Ankitech/ Madhur Housing is wrongly decided and should be reconsidered by larger bench

The whole object of the provision is clear from the Explanatory memorandum and the literal language of the newly inserted definition clause which is to get over the two judgments of this Court referred to hereinabove. This is why “shareholder” now, post amendment, has only to be a person who is the beneficial owner of shares. One cannot be a registered owner and beneficial owner in the sense of a beneficiary of a trust or otherwise at the same time. It is clear therefore that the moment there is a shareholder, who need not necessarily be a member of the Company on its register, who is the beneficial owner of shares, the Section gets attracted without more. To state, therefore, that two conditions have to be satisfied, namely, that the shareholder must first be a registered shareholder and thereafter, also be a beneficial owner is not only mutually contradictory but is plainly incorrect. Also, what is important is the addition, by way of amendment, of such beneficial owner holding not less than 10% of voting power. This is another indicator that the amendment speaks only of a beneficial shareholder who can compel the registered owner to vote in a particular way, as has been held in a catena of decisions starting from Mathalone vs. Bombay Life Assurance Co. Ltd., [1954] SCR 117 Read the rest of this entry »

Case Law: CIT vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd (Supreme Court)

14A/ Rule 8D: Entire law on whether the computation provisions of Rule 8D is retrospective explained in the light of established principles of interpretation of statutes read with verdicts in Vatika Townships 367 ITR 466 (SC), Gold Coin Health 304 ITR 308 (SC) and other verdicts

There is no indication in Rule 8D to the effect that Rule 8D intended to apply retrospectively. Applying the principles of statutory interpretation for interpreting retrospectivity of a fiscal statute and looking into the nature and purpose of subsection (2) and subsection (3) of Section 14A as well as purpose and intent of Rule 8D coupled with the explanatory notes in the Finance Bill, 2006 and the departmental understanding as reflected by Circular dated 28.12.2006, we are of the considered opinion that Rule 8D was intended to operate prospectively.   Read the rest of this entry »

State Budget: West Bengal State Budget 2018-19 (Bengali)

West Bengal budget statement as presented by Dr. Amit Mitra as on 31st January 2018

West Bengal State Budget 2018-19 (Bengali)