Imp Verdicts

PCIT vs. Radan Multimedia Ltd (Bombay High Court)

There is no discipline in the manner the Dept conducts matters. The Dept should not take legal matters casually and lightly. There should be a dedicated legal team in the department. Lack of preparation is affecting the performance of the advocates. They do not have full records & do not have the assistance of officials who can give instructions. The CsIT should devote more time to their work rather than attending some administrative meetings and thereafter boasting about revenue collection in Mumbai

If Appeals are filed routinely merely because the Revenue thinks that there are huge stakes involved, then, it is expected that the Revenue officials come fully prepared to Court, give instructions and before the matters are actually argued before us, they hold meeting and conference with the Revenue advocates. Very often, lack of preparation is affecting the performance of the advocates. One of the reasons why the advocates are not in a position to render complete assistance to the Court is because they themselves do not have full records. They do not have the assistance of the official, who can give them instructions. Arguing matter before a Court requires presence of mind. At times, one has to think on toes. More so, when the scales are not evenly balanced. The assessees and their counsel are fully equipped, but the Revenue does not have such degree of competence nor are they efficient enough

Supernova System Private Limited vs. CCIT (Gujarat High Court)

S. 276C/ 279 Compounding of offenses: The expression "amount sought to be evaded" in CBDT's compounding guidelines dated 23.12.2014 means the amount of "tax sought to be evaded" and not the amount of "income sought to be evaded"

In the prescription of punishment thus, when there is a reference to amount sought to be evaded, it must be seen in light of the willful attempt on the part of the concerned person to evade tax, penalty or interest. This provision thus, links the severity of punishment on the amount sought to be evaded and thus, in turn has relation to the attempt at evasion of tax, penalty or interest. Thus, when the CBDT circular refers to the amount sought to be evaded, it must be seen and understood in light of the provisions contained in section 276C(1) and in turn must be seen as amount sought to be evaded. 100% of tax sought to be evaded would be the basic compounding fees

Devarsh Pravinbhai Patel vs. ACIT (Gujarat High Court)

S. 192/ 205: If the deductor has deducted TDS and issued Form 16A, the deductee has to be given credit even if the deductor has defaulted in his obligation to deposit the TDS with the Government revenue

In case of the petitioner the employer for the assessment year 201213 while paying salary had deducted tax at source to the tune of Rs.2,68,498/ but had not deposited such tax with the Government revenue. The short question is under such circumstances can the Department seek to recover such amount from the petitioner or whether the petitioner is correct in contending that he had already suffered the deduction of tax, the mere fact that the deductee did not deposit such tax with the Government revenue could not permit the Incometax Department to recover such amount from the petitioner

Bhojison Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)

S. 2(14)/ 28(va): The "right to sue" which arises on breach of a development agreement is a "personal right" and not a "capital asset" which can be transferred. Consequently, the damages received for relinquishment of the "right to sue" is a non-taxable capital receipt (all judgements considered)

A development agreement was executed which enabled the assessee to utilize the land for construction and for sharing of profits. This right/advantage accrued to the assessee was sought to be taken away from the assessee by way of sale of land. The prospective purchaser as well as the defaulting party (owner) perceived threat of filing suit by developer and consequently paid damages/ compensation to shun the possible legal battle. The intrinsic point with respect to accrual of ‘right to sue’ has to be seen in the light of overriding circumstances as to how the parties have perceived the presence of looming legal battle from their point of view. I t is an admitted position that the defaulting party has made the assessee a confirming party in the sale by virtue of such development agreement and a compensation was paid to avoid litigation. This amply shows the existence of ‘right to sue’ in the perception of the defaulting party.