Wednesday, 15 July 2015

Five Imp Verdicts On Validity Of Search Assessments + S. 54 Deduction For Purchase vs. Construction Etc


CIT vs. M/s Mechmen (Madhya Pradesh High Court)


S. 153C: Even if the AO of the searched person and of the "other person" (i.e. the assessee) is the same, the proper satisfaction has to be recorded before assuming jurisdiction over the assessee. Failure to record satisfaction renders the assessment order null and void

The fact that incidentally the Assessing Officer is common at both the stages would not extricate him from recording satisfaction at the respective stages. In that, the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the items referred to in Section 153C belongs or belong to a person (other than the person referred to in Section 153A), being sine qua non. He cannot assume jurisdiction to transmit those items to another file which incidentally is pending before him concerning other person (person other than the person referred to in Section 153A). The question as to whether that may influence the opinion of the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, also cannot be the basis to take any other view.

 

ACIT vs. Sagar Nitin Parikh (ITAT Mumbai)


S. 54: Booking a flat which is going to be constructed by the builder is a case of “construction” of the flat. If the flat is booked prior to the date of transfer of the old flat, deduction u/s 54 is not available. The date of receiving possession of the new flat cannot be regarded as the date of “purchase” of the new flat

The booking of a flat which is going to be constructed by a builder has to be considered as a case of “Construction of flat”. Deduction u/s 54 is available only if the assessee constructs a new house within three years after the date of transfer. In the instant case, the assessee has constructed a house prior to the date of transfer of original house, in which case, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction u/s 54 of the Act in respect of the cost of new flat

 

ITO vs. Late Som Nath Malhotra (ITAT Delhi)


S. 148/ 292BB: Issue of notice in the name of the deceased person renders the assessment order null and void even if the order is passed in the name of the legal heir. The fact that the legal heir attended the proceedings does not make it a curable defect u/s 292BB

The AO issued notice dated 31.03.2010 u/s 148 of the Act in the name of the deceased assessee and also mentioned in the body of the assessment order that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee by Post within the statutory time period prescribed. Though the legal heir of the deceased assessee informed the AO that the assessee had expired and the return in the name of deceased assessee was filed by the legal heir, the AO did not issue any notice u/s 148 of the Act or 143(2) of the Act in the name of the legal heir. Therefore, the assessment framed by the AO on the basis of the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act in the name of the deceased assessee was invalid and void ab initio

 

Deccan Education Society vs. ACIT (ITAT Pune)


S. 10(23C) (iiiab): Law on treating an educational institution as running with a profit motive and treating the donations received by it as “capitation fee” on the basis of the allegation of the persons who have made the said donation explained

None of the persons who have deposed against the assessee by stating that they had given donation for the purpose of getting admission has complained to the Government for any such violation by the society. It is also to be noted that those persons have filled up the requisite proforma stating that they have given donation to the assessee voluntarily and not for seeking admission. Even some of them claimed deduction u/s.80G, a fact stated by the assessee and not controverted by the Departmental Representative. Therefore, changing the stands after their wards completed their education from the institutions run by the assessee trust are contradictory

 

CIT vs. SMCC Construction India Ltd (Delhi High Court)


S. 37(1): The very nature of a license agreement is that it is not of a permanent nature. The fact that the payment is spread over a period of 10 yearst does not make the assessee the owner of the technical knowhow. The payment is not of an enduring nature

Although the payment is spread over a period of 10 years, it does not make the Assessee the owner of the technical knowhow. The very nature of the license agreement is that it is not of a permanent nature. The benefit to the Assessee as a result of payment of royalty for technical knowhow was not of an enduring nature, and therefore cannot be construed to be a capital expenditure

No comments: