Important Verdicts On Capital Gains/ Transfer, S. 14A/Rule 8D Disallowance And S. 271(1)(c) Penalty

 

Dear Subscriber,

 

The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.

CIT vs. C. Sugumaran (Madras High Court)

S. 2(47)(vi): A Power of Attorney which does not enable enjoyment of property does not result in a "transfer". CBDT Circular No.495 dated 22.9.1987 reads more into s. 2(47)(vi) than warranted

(i) There is no transfer to or enabling enjoyment of property in favour of the assessee in any manner and therefore, sub-clause (vi) of Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act does not get attracted. Clause 21 of the power of attorney, which has been already referred to supra, clearly reveals that no consideration was […]

Cochin Stock Exchanges Limited vs. CIT (Kerala High Court)

S. 2(47)(v): Execution of a Power of Attorney in favour of the builder constitutes part performance u/s 53A of TOP Act and a "transfer" for capital gains

(i) On a reading of the above provision itself, it is clear that possession of the property has been handed over to the builder immediately on receipt of the first installment of the payment from the builder. As per clause (3), the total consideration is mentioned as Rs.8,83,50,400/- and Rs.3,00,00,000/- was to be paid as […]

ACIT vs. Dhampur Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd (Allahabad High Court)

S. 14A/ Rule 8D: Interest expenditure attributable to a taxable business cannot be disallowed. Expenditure on creating assets which do not belong to the assessee is revenue expenditure

(i) Once it was duly established that no borrowed funds on which interest was paid had been invested for earning tax free income, no disallowance was permissible under Section 14A. The Tribunal has observed that under Rule 8D(2)(ii), a proportionate disallownace out of interest expenditure would be made in respect of interest expenditure which is […]

DCIT vs. Nepa Limited (ITAT Indore)

S. 271(1)(c): Penalty initiated without specifying whether it is for concealment or for furnishing inaccurate particulars is invalid

(i) It is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to state whether penalty was being levied for concealment of particulars of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of income had been furnished by the assessee. There are two different charges i.e. the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of […]

Poysha Goyal vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

S. 271(1)(c): No penalty can be levied for a bona fide "wrong" claim which is not a "false" claim

The addition by way of disallowing the depreciation claimed has rightly been made in the quantum proceedings which fact has been accepted by the assessee by filing a revised return and not agitating the issue further. Considering the explanation offered by the assessee in the penalty proceedings, it is seen that repeatedly it is claimed […]

CIT vs. Shri Girija Smelters (P) Ltd (Andhra Pradesh High Court)

An ITO cannot carry out the functions of an authority under the Central Excise Act and arrogate to himself the power to determine the quantity of production, or the intricacies of the manufacturing process. He must seek assistance of the concerned authority

(i) Even where the authorities of the Central Excise Department doubt the accuracy of figures mentioned in the registers, or if they find it difficult to understand the complexity of the manufacturing process, they seek the help of the experts. Sometimes experts are on the rolls of the department itself, and on the other occasions, […]

ITO vs. Narinder Kaur Bhatia (ITAT Mumbai)

S. 54: Purchasing the undivided share of a co-owner in a new flat constitutes a "purchase" & is eligible for exemption

(i) The assessee purchased a residential flat on 08.01.1981, which was sold on 07.02.2007 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,25,00,000/-. The long term capital gain on such sale amounted to Rs.1,14,63,650/-. Before the said sale, assessee had entered into an agreement to purchase a residential flat, being flat no. 501 Elegant Orchid at Santacruz (west), […]

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

S. 271(1)(c) Penalty Of Rs. 56.67 Cr Levied On Abhishek Manu Singhvi

Eminent Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who has appeared in several landmark income-tax cases such as Vodafone, has been assessed to undisclosed income of Rs. 91.95 crore by the Income Tax Settlement Commission. Penalty of Rs. 56.67 Cr u/s 271(1)(c) has also been levied. The addition has been made inter alia in respect of the […]