CIT vs. Parle Bisleri Ltd (Bombay High Court)

Severe strictures passed against the department for filing a ‘patently false’ affidavit with regard to the failure to remove office objections. The cause shown is not sufficient and lacks in bona fides. It is a case of gross negligence and utter callousness on the part of the Revenue/Department. Tendency of the Revenue to either blame its’ Advocate or the procedural rules for the dismissal of their Appeals deprecated

We find that the explanation or reason given in paragraph 3 of this affidavit to be patently false. If paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of this affidavit-in-support cannot be reconciled, then, it is obvious that though aware of the conditional orders after lodging of the subject Appeal, the Revenue’s Advocate and the Revenue officials did not take the requisite steps. They cannot now come out with such a version for seeking restoration of a dismissed Appeal. The cause shown is, therefore, not sufficient and lacks in bona fides. It is a case of gross negligence and utter callousness on the part of the Revenue/Department. In two similar Motions, we had deprecated the tendency of the Revenue to either blame it’s Advocate or the procedural rules for the dismissal of their Appeals Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

CIT vs. Shreedhar Sewa Trust (Allahabad High Court)

S. 12AA: At the time of registration of a charitable institution u/s 12AA, the CIT is not required to look into the activities, where such activities have not or are in the process of its initiation. The registration cannot be refused on the ground that the trust has not yet commenced the charitable or religious activity. At this stage, only the genuineness of the objects has to be tested and not the activities, unless such activities have commenced

The preponderance of the judicial opinion of all the High Courts including this court is that at the time of registration under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, which is necessary for claiming exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income-tax is not required to look into the activities, where such activities have not or are in the process of its initiation. Where a trust, set up to achieve its objects of establishing educational institution, is in the process of establishing such institutions, and receives donations, the registration under section 12AA cannot be refused, on the ground that the trust has not yet commenced the charitable or religious activity. Any enquiry of the nature would amount to putting the cart before the horse. At this stage, only the genuineness of the objects has to be tested and not the activities, which have not commenced. The enquiry of the Commissioner of Income-tax at such preliminary stage should be restricted to the genuineness of the objects and not the activities unless such activities have commenced. The trust or society cannot claim exemption, unless it is registered under section 12AA of the Act and thus at that such initial stage the test of the genuineness of the activity cannot be a ground on which the registration may be refused Read the rest of this entry »

PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court)

S. 263 Revision: For the purposes of exercising jurisdiction u/s 263, the conclusion of the CIT that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue has to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. If the PCIT is of the view that the AO did not undertake any inquiry, it becomes incumbent on the PCIT to conduct such inquiry. The second option available u/s 263 (1) of sending the entire matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment can be exercised by the PCIT only after he undertakes an inquiry himself and not otherwise

For the purposes of exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, the conclusion that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue has to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. In fact, if the PCIT is of the view that the AO did not undertake any inquiry, it becomes incumbent on the PCIT to conduct such inquiry. All that PCIT has done in the impugned order is to refer to the Circular of the CBDT and conclude that “in the case of the Assessee company, the AO was duty bound to calculate and allow depreciation on the BOT in conformity of the CBDT Circular 9/2014 but the AO failed to do so. Therefore, the order of the AO is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue” Read the rest of this entry »

CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal (Bombay High Court)

S. 153A: Argument of the Dept that the law laid down in Continental Warehousing/ All Cargo Global Logistics 374 ITR 645 (Bom) that assessment u/s 153A can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found in the search and no other issue can be taken is per incuriam in view of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers 291 ITR 500 (SC) is not correct. Bhola Shankar Cold Storage 270 ITR 487 (Cal) distinguished

The argument of Mr. Ahuja is that the view taken by the Tribunal based on its Special Bench decision in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax, Central Circle44, [2012] 23 Taxman.Com 103 (Mum.) (SB) cannot be said to be correct. Mr. Ahuja’s argument is that though the assessee is heavily relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of IncomeTax v. (1) Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. and (2) All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Reported in [2015] 374 ITR 645 (Bom), still, the questions proposed by the Revenue in these Appeals ought to be entertained. These are substantial questions of law and the Division Bench judgment in Continental Warehousing Corporation and All Cargo Global Logistics (supra) is rendered in ignorance of a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) (Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited). Read the rest of this entry »

CIT vs. ITD CEM India JV (Bombay High Court)

40(a)(ia)/40(ba) Disallowance of reimbursement of salary for non-deduction of TDS: Displeasure and unhappiness expressed at the manner in which the Tribunal approached the matter insofar as the applicability of s. 40(ba) is concerned. Tribunal cautioned that it should not use abbreviations in the order without indicating what the terms stand for as it causes confusion

Apart from that, the Tribunal’s order is confusing. In the impugned order, the Tribunal does not indicate what it means by AOP. It does not indicate as to what it means by TAS for both sides tell us that it is identical to TDS, namely, Tax Deducted at Source. We are unhappy with the abbreviations and short forms in the Tribunal’s order. We do not see who is reluctant, either one who dictates or one who takes down the same, but such abbreviations and shortcuts increase burden on the higher Courts. We would caution the Tribunal that hereafter it should indicate somewhere in the order as to what the abbreviations used by it stand for Read the rest of this entry »

Uttam Value Steels Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 271(1)(c) penalty: Voluntary disclosure of Rs. 557.50 crores. Entire law on levy of penalty discussed in the context of declaration made during survey, bogus purchases, bogus share capital, accommodation entries, non-application of mind by the AO etc. All important judgements incl Kaushalya 216 ITR 660 (Bom), MAK Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) explained/ distinguished

A survey action u/s 133A was taken by the Investigation Wing against the assessee on 19/12/2012. The survey took place at the office premises as well as at the factory premises where the manufacturing activity is carried on. Not a single piece of paper is found either from the office premises or from the factory premises which could prove or indicate or suggest that the assessee has earned unaccounted income. However, during course of survey, statement of Director of Company Shri Babu Lal was recorded on 21/12/2012, wherein he offered income earned during the course of business. No iota of proof is also found regarding the manufacturing results disclosed by the assessee. The Investigation Wing has not issued a -single letter or a show cause or a questionnaire after conduct of the survey to the assessee pointing out any discrepancy or defect in the books of account or regarding detection of unaccounted income. The assessee on its own voluntarily filed a letter dated 27/12/2012 on 07/01/2013 with the Investigation Wing offering the income of Rs.557.50 crores for A.V. 2007-08 to 2010-11 Read the rest of this entry »

UOI vs. Tata Tea Co. Ltd (Supreme Court)

S. 115-O Dividend Distribution Tax: Entire law on the constitutional validity of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) under Article 246 of the Constitution read with Entry 82 of List I and Entry 46 of List II in the Seventh Schedule and whether tea companies are liable for the tax on only 40% of the dividend income explained

This Court, however, while considering the nature of dividend in the above case held that although when the initial source which has produced the revenue is land used for agricultural purposes but to give to the words ‘revenue derived from land’, apart from its direct association or relation with the land, an unrestricted meaning shall be unwarranted. Again as noted above Nalin Behari Lal Singha (supra) observation was made that shares of its profits declared as distributable among the shareholders is not impressed with the character of the profit from which it reaches the hands of the shareholder. We, thus, find substances in the submission of the learned counsel for the Union of India that when the dividend is declared to be distributed and paid to company’s shareholder it is not impressed with character of source of its income Read the rest of this entry »