Interim Indian Union Budget 2019-20 (1) [English]

Speech of Piyush Goyal Minister of Finance February 1, 2019

Interim Budget 2019-2020

Advertisements

Case Law: DCIT vs. Kargwal Products P. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

147 Reopening for taxing Bogus share capital: Even in a s. 143(1) intimation, the AO is not entitled to reopen on the ground that the assessee has received “huge share premium” which was not “examined” by the AO. The AO cannot reopen in the absence of tangible material that shows income has escaped assessment

The assessment was processed under section 143(1). The assessment was reopened on 29.03.2014 without four year from the end of relevant Assessment Year. We have noted that the Assessing Officer nowhere mentioned in the reasons recorded that any tangible material either from assessment record or from other source has come in the notice of Assessing Officer for his reason to believe that any income has escape assessment. Therefore, the basic requirement of reopening of the assessee i.e. reason to believe was not fulfilled at the time of recording the reasons of reopening Read the rest of this entry »

Case Law: Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Corporation Limited vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

276C Prosecution: If the Appeal is admitted on substantial questions of law, there is no justification for the DCIT to threaten the assessee with prosecution. Even if such prosecution is launched, the same shall not proceed till the pendency of the Appeal

Once we have admitted the Appeal on substantial questions of law, we do not think that there is any  justification for the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle8( 1) to threaten the appellant/applicant with any prosecution. Even if such prosecution is launched, the same shall not proceed till the pendency of this Appeal Read the rest of this entry »

Case Law: Akshar Builders and Developers vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)

147: Even in a case where return is accepted without scrutiny, the AO cannot proceed mechanically and on erroneous information supplied to him by investigation wing. If AO acts merely upon information submitted by investigation wing and on total lack of application of mind, the reopening is invalid

Even in a case where the return filed by the assessee is accepted without scrutiny, as per the settled law, the Assessing Officer can issue a notice of reopening of assessment provided he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer cannot proceed mechanically and also on erroneous information that may have been supplied to him. In fact, we note that in the present case the Assessing Officer had issued a notice to a wrong person Read the rest of this entry »

Case Law: PCIT vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan (Bombay High Court)

45 Capital Gains: The allottee gets title to property on issue of allotment letter. The payment of installments is only a follow­-up action. Taking delivery of possession is only a formality. Accordingly, the date of allotment is the date on which the purchaser of a residential unit can be stated to have acquired the property (CBDT Circulars applied)

It was noted that such allotment is final unless it is cancelled or the allottee withdraw from the scheme and such allotment would be cancelled only under exceptional circumstances. It was noted that the allottee gets title to the property on the issue of allotment letter and the payment of installments was only a follow­up action and taking the delivery of possession is only a formality Read the rest of this entry »

Happy New Year

Case Law: Deepak B Shah vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

69A Black Money: If the assessee is a discretionary beneficiary of the HSBC Bank Account and is not the owner, addition u/s 69A cannot be sustained. In the case of a discretionary trust, the income of the trust cannot be added in the hands of the beneficiary. The trustees are the representative assessees who are liable to be taxed for the income of the trust (All judgements considered)

We find that addition has been made by the AO U/s 69A of the Act to justify the addition on account of peak balance. We agree with the contentions of the Ld. AR that it is sine qua non for invoking section 69A of the IT Act., the assessee must be found to be the owner of money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles and whereas in the present case the money is owned and held by Mr. Dipendu Bapalal Shah a foreign resident in an account HSBC, Geneva and also admitted that he is the owner of the money in the HSBC Account Geneva Read the rest of this entry »