Case Law: Devarsh Pravinbhai Patel vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)

192/ 205: If the deductor has deducted TDS and issued Form 16A, the deductee has to be given credit even if the deductor has defaulted in his obligation to deposit the TDS with the Government revenue

In case of the petitioner the employer for the assessment year 201213 while paying salary had deducted tax at source to the tune of Rs.2,68,498/ but had not deposited such tax with the Government revenue. The short question is under such circumstances can the Department seek to recover such amount from the petitioner or whether the petitioner is correct in contending that he had already suffered the deduction of tax, the mere fact that the deductee did not deposit such tax with the Government revenue could not permit the Incometax Department to recover such amount from the petitioner

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

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 »

Case Law: DCIT vs. Sterling Ornaments (P) Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

s.9/ 195(1) TDS: Law on whether commision paid to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India accrues in India and whether the assessee is liable to deduct TDS thereon explained (All judgements referred)

Section 195 of the Act has to be read alongwith the charging Section 4,5 and 9 of the Act. One should not read Section 195 of the Act to mean that the moment there is a remittance, the obligation to deduct tax automatically arises. Section 195 of the Act clearly provides that unless the income is chargeable to lax in India, there is no obligation to withhold tax. In order to determine whether the income could be deemed to accrue or arise in India, section 9 of the Act is the basis Read the rest of this entry »

Case Law: New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) vs. CCIT (Supreme Court)

S.10(20): Law on whether an industrial township referred to in proviso to Article 243Q is equivalent to a “municipality” and a “local authority” explained. Law on interpretation of statutes as to the scope of an “Explanation” and “Proviso” explained. There is no concept of “equity” or “presumption” or “intendment” in a taxing statute. Only the language has to be seen

What she argued was that looking to the nature of the functions enjoined upon the appellant committee, it must be deemed to be a municipal committee within the meaning of that expression in clause (iii) of the Explanation. We regret our inability to accept that submission. We say so for two distinct reasons. Firstly because the expression “municipal committee” appears in a taxing statute and must, Therefore, be construed strictly. It is fairly well-settled by a long line of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court that while interpreting a taxing statute, one has simply to look to what is clearly stated therein. There is, in fiscal statutes, no room for any intendment nor is there any equity about the levy sanctioned under the same Read the rest of this entry »

Case Law: Madhu Sarda vs. ITO (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

The transactions being genuine, merely because the assessee has claimed set-off of capital loss against the capital gain earned during the same period, cannot be said to be a colourable device or method adopted by assessee to avoid the tax. The shares were transferred by executing share transfer Form and after paying the requisite Stamp duty. The company NTPL also passed a Board Resolution for transfer of those shares. The consideration of share was effected to through banking channel. The fair market value arrived by assessee, as furnished before Commissioner (Appeals). In our view the transactions of sale of share were genuine and transacted at a proper valuation. The lower authority has not disputed the genuinity of transaction. The transactions carried by assessee are valid in law, cannot be treated as non-est merely on the basis of some economic detriment or it may be prejudicial to the interest of revenue Read the rest of this entry »

Case Law: Kunal R. Gupta vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

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

Though conflict of legal claims in present or in future is generally a condition for the validity of a family arrangement, it is not necessarily so. Even bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims will suffice. Members of a joint Hindu family may, to maintain peace or to bring about harmony in the family, enter into such a family arrangement. If such an arrangement is entered into bona fide and the terms thereof are fair in the circumstances of a particular case, Courts will more readily give assent to such an arrangement than to avoid it Read the rest of this entry »

Case Law: Prafful Industries (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: The primary burden of proof is on the Revenue to show that the assessee is guilty of concealment/ furnishing inaccurate particulars. Making an incorrect claim does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars by any stretch of imagination. Wrong claim of depreciation by crediting capital subsidy to reserves instead of reducing from actual cost/ WDV does not attract s. 271(1)(c) penalty

The expression “has concealed the particulars of income” and “has furnished inaccurate particulars of income” have not been defined either in sec. 271(l)(c) or elsewhere in the Act. One thing is certain that these two circumstances are not identical in details although they may lead to same effect, namely, keeping of a certain portion of income. The former is direct and the later may be indirect in its execution. The word “conceal” is derived from the Latin word “concolare” which implies to hide. In the present appeal, even if a excess depreciation has been claimed by the assessee on the basis of the Companies Act does not mean that the assessee had hidden something, therefore, even if a wrong claim is made, automatically, does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Concealment refers to a deliberate act on the part of the assessee. The primary burden of proof is on the Revenue, before a penalty is imposed u/s 271(l)(c) because by no stretch of imagination, making a incorrect claim, does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, therefore, keeping in view the totality of facts and the judicial pronouncements, that too from the Hon’ble Apex Court, no penalty is leviable especially when there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return is erroneous or incorrect, therefore, mere making a excess claim in itself does not invite imposition of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) because the same cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars Read the rest of this entry »