The following important judgements are available for download at itatonline.org.
ACIT vs. M/s G V Sons (ITAT Mumbai)
Bogus purchases: Merely because a party has admitted to indulging in sham/ accommodation transactions does not mean that all his transactions with the assessee should be treated as sham
We cannot accept a bald statement made by the AO that any transaction/business done with a party would be sham, simply because the opposite party besides doing regular business was also indulging in providing accommodation entries. Simply on the basis of statement given by the third party, that they were also providing accommodation entries as well, the conduct of the assessee cannot be doubted and held to be sham
M/s. ANS Law Associates vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Additions made solely on the basis of AIR information are not sustainable in law. The AO has to prove that assessee has received income from a particular source. The assessee cannot be expected to prove the negative
It has been held time and again by this Tribunal that the additions made solely on the basis of AIR information are not sustainable in the eyes of the law. If the assessee denies that he is in receipt of income from a particular source, it is for the AO to prove that the assessee has received income as the assessee cannot prove the negative
ACIT vs. Sunland Metal Recycling (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 50C/ 271(1)(c): Even if s. 50C is applicable, computing capital gain de hors it does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
The Assessing Officer has not given any finding that the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee is not actual amount received as per the agreement of sale. The addition was made by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C whereby the full value of consideration was adopted as per the valuation of the stamp duty authority for levy of stamp duty. The assessee has disclosed all relevant details as well as documents in support of its computation of Short term Capital Gain by taking into consideration the actual sale consideration received by the assessee. Consequently penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied
Sannidhi C. Patel vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 56(2)(vi): Amounts received under a Power of Attorney for making investments cannot be treated as income in the hands of the recipient
Section 56 of the Act deals with income from other sources. Sub-clause (vi) to section 56 (2) was inserted by taxation laws (amendment) Act, 2006, with effect from 01/04/2007. The plain reading of the aforementioned statutory provisions reveals that it is intended to tax a receipt of money without consideration. The impugned amount was received by the assessee for making the investment on behalf of Ustad Zakir Hussain, on the basis of Power of Attorney. If the provisions of the Act and the content of the Power of Attorney are kept in juxtaposition and analyzed then it can be concluded that the mutual funds, purchase and sold by the assessee were made on behalf of Shri Zakir Hussain
ITO vs. Indore Steel and Iron Mills Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 43B/ 36(1)(va): High Court verdict in Hindustan Organics Chemicals 270 CTR 478 (Bom) decides that employees' contribution to PF is eligible for s. 43B even though that was not the issue before it. It also does not refer to any judicial precedents. Also, the Q framed by the dept and its representation before the High Court leaves much to be desired. However, the judgement is binding and has to be followed
However, again, it cannot be denied that per the said decision, which is judicially binding on us, the hon'ble court has abundantly clarified that the deduction in respect of the employee's contribution (to the employee welfare funds) in the hands of the assessee-employer is governed by the provision of section 43B, so that where deposited by the due date of the filing of the return for the relevant year, shall be valid in terms of the amended s.43B, i.e., by Finance Act 2003, with effect from 01.04.2004, which amendment stands held by the apex court in Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) to the retrospective, so that it shall apply even to years prior to A.Y.2004-05. The hon'ble court, we note, does not discuss nor refer to any judicial precedents. The question of law framed by the Department, as well as its representation before the hon'ble court, leaves much to be desired. That, however, would not in any manner detract from or dilute its binding nature on us as a subordinate forum
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest:Pradeep Kumar Chowdhry vs. DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad)
S. 54F: Amount paid to builder for house is equivalent to amount spent by assessee for construction. Fact that only advance is given and construction is delayed beyond 3 years does not deprive assessee of exemption
No comments:
Post a Comment