Thursday, 11 August 2016

Important Case Law

Tulsidas Trading Pvt. Ltd vs. TRO (Bombay High Court)

Action of assessee of filing Writ Petition to seek early hearing of appeal before CIT(A) while simultaneously seeking adjournment before the CIT(A) on frivolous grounds is a "delaying tactic" and an "abuse of the legal process". Petition dismissed and assessee directed to pay costs to the department
This conduct on part of the petitioner filing the petition inter alia seeking early hearing of its appeal before the CIT (A) and at the same time when the appeal is fixed for hearing by the CIT (A), the petitioner is seeking adjournment on frivolous grounds indicating that the petitioner is not serious about attending the hearing. It appears to be time delaying tactics and abuse of the legal process. In fact on 11th July, 2016 the last adjournment sought by the petitioner was to fix the hearing of the appeal in August 2016. The very fact that the petitioner has been seeking adjournment time and again before the CIT (A) and filing the petition in this Court seeking early hearing of its appeal is an abuse of the process of law 

Pr. CIT vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (Delhi High Court)

S. 80IA(2A): As the words "derived from" are absent, there is no requirement to prove "first degree nexus" of the receipts with the eligible business. All receipts of the undertaking are eligible for 100% deduction
The legislature having ousted applicability of sub-section (1) and (2) in the opening sentence brought in for the purposes of time line sub-section (2) into play but made no efforts whatsoever to put the assessee under sub-section (2A) to meet the stringent requirements that the profits so contemplated were to be “derived from”. The requirements of the first degree nexus of the profits from the eligible business has not been brought into play 

Chetnaben J Shah vs. ITO (Gujarat High Court)

S. 132(4): Mere voluntary disclosure of undisclosed income by assessee cannot form basis of addition if no evidence is detected in search. Fact that retraction of statement is late is irrelevant. CBDT Circular No. F.No.286/2/2003-IT (In) dated 10.03.2003 bars addition on the basis of confession
It is a normal presumption that statement under section 132(4) is given voluntarily unless it is proved otherwise. There is no evidence on record to show that this statement was given in any coercion. But this statement was subject to variation on either side after verification i.e. assessee could reduce the disclosure made or the Assessing Officer could enhance the same if the facts and evidence so warranted. May be, even if this fact is not mentioned in the statement itself, the point will still remain since it is no body’s case to get say any extra tax then is due. The reality remains that there is no evidence what-so-ever with the department even in consequence of a serious action like search and seizure followed by detailed security which could support the earning of speculation income of Rs.10,50,000/- in this year. In other words, there is no evidence to support the very existence of this income except the so called statement u/s 132(4) of the Act. It defies logic that an assessee will or should admit any income which he had not earned and which the department had not found out 

Sita Bai Khetan vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)

S. 50C: Valuation is a matter of estimation and some degree of difference is bound to be there. If the difference between the stamp duty valuation and the declared sale consideration is less than 10%, addition u/s 50C should not be made
Valuation is always a matter of estimation where some degree of difference is bound to occur. The difference between the valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority and declared by the assessee is less than 10%