Pr CIT vs. Prem Pal Gandhi
(P&H High Court)
Bogus capital gains from Penny stocks: The fact that the appreciation in
the value of the shares is high does not justify the transactions being treated
as fictitious and the capital gains being assessed as undisclosed income if (a)
the shares are traded on the Stock Exchange, (b) the payments and receipts are
routed through the bank, (c) there is no evidence to indicate it is a closely
held company and (d) the trading on the Stock Exchange was manipulated in any manner
The assessee purchased shares of a company during the assessment year 2006-2007 at Rs 11/- and sold the same in the assessment year 2008-2009 at Rs 400/- per share. The Assessing Officer added the appreciation to the assessees’ income on the suspicion that these were fictitious transactions and that the appreciation actually represented the assessees’ income from undisclosed sources. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not produced any evidence whatsoever in support of the suspicion. On the other hand, although the appreciation is very high, the shares were traded on the National Stock Exchange and the payments and receipts were routed through the bank. There was no evidence to indicate for instance that this was a closely held company and that the trading on the National Stock Exchange was manipulated in any manner
Rentworks India Private Limited
vs. Pr CIT (Bombay High Court)
S. 127(2) Transfer of
case: The existence of agreement between two jurisdictional Commissioners is a
condition precedent for passing the order of transfer. The agreement cannot be
implied because S. 127(2) (2) (a) contemplates a positive state of mind of the
two jurisdictional CsIT. Absence of disagreement cannot tantamount to agreement
The existence of such agreement between two jurisdictional Commissioners is a condition precedent for passing the order of transfer. Except for the request which came from the investigation office, Chennai of transferring the case, there is no reference whatsoever to any such agreement. Clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 127 provides for consequences when there is no such agreement. When the jurisdiction to pass an order of transfer under clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 127 can be exercised only when there is such an agreement, the fact that such an agreement exists ought to have been stated in the the show cause notice as the same is a jurisdictional fact. Apart from the failure to mention the same in the show cause notice, the only stand of the revenue is that there is an agreement by implication
Priyanka Chopra vs. DCIT (ITAT
Mumbai)
S. 68: If an admission of undisclosed income is made by the assessee after reference to the material found during search and seizure, it cannot be said that the admission is not based on incriminating material. The retraction of such admission of undisclosed income is not permissible especially when the retraction is by the mother and not by the assessee
As evident in the material obtained by the Revenue during search and seizure, it was only with reference to the search and seizure material that Smt. Madhu Chopra gave a specific amount to various heads wherein the undisclosed income had been utilized. The assessee had also separately accepted the same. Hence, it cannot be said that this addition is not based upon any incriminating material found or searched. Furthermore, the so called retraction is by the mother of the assessee and the Assessing Officer is correct in finding that there is no retraction whatsoever by the assessee
No comments:
Post a Comment