R. W. Promotions P. Ltd vs. ITAT (Bombay High Court)
S. 254(2)/ 260A: Pendency of an appeal filed in the High Court u/s 260A is no bar to the maintainability of a MA filed u/s 254(2)
Merely because the assessee has challenged the order of the Tribunal in an Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the High Court does not mean that the power under section (2) of section 254 cannot be invoked either by the assessee or by the revenue/Assessing Officer. Such a power enables the Tribunal to rectify any mistake apparent from the record and make amendments. That in a given case would not only save precious judicial time of the Tribunal but even of the higher Court
Heranba Industries Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 271(1)(c): Surrender of income after questionnaire does not mean it is not voluntary. If surrender is on condition of no penalty and assessment is based only on surrender and not on evidence, penalty cannot be levied
At the time of surrender itself contention of not initiating any penalty proceedings was there. No additional matter was discovered to prove that there was concealment of income. The AO has included the amount of share capital in the total income of assessee merely on the basis of assessee’s declaration/surrender. The AO did not point out or refer any evidence or material to show that the amount of share capital received by the assessee was bogus. It is also not the case of the revenue that material was found at the assessee’s premises to indicate that share application money received was an arranged affair to accommodate assessee’s unaccounted money. Thus there was no detection by the AO that share capital was not genuine. The surrender of share capital after issue of the notice u/s.143(2) could not lead to any inference that it was not voluntary.
ACIT vs. Ramila Pravin Shah (ITAT Mumbai)
Bogus purchases: Fact that suppliers names appear in the list of hawala dealers of the sales-tax dept and that assessee is unable to produce them does not mean that the purchases are bogus if the payment is through banking channels & GP ratio becomes abnormally high
If the addition made by the A.O. is accepted, then G.P. Ratio of the appellant during the present A.Y.will become abnormally high and therefore that is not acceptable because it onus of the A.O. by bringing adequate material on record to prove that such a high G.P. ratio exists in the nature of business carried out by the appellant. Further, it has to be appreciated that (i)Payments were through banking channel and by Cheque, (ii) Notices coming back, does not mean, those Parties are bogus, they are just denying their business to avoid sales tax/VAT etc, (iii) Statement by third parties cannot be concluded adversely in isolation and without corroborating evidences against appellant ,(iv) No cross examination has been offered by AO to the appellant to cross examine the relevant parties (who are deemed to be witness or approver being used by AO against the appellant) whose name appear in the website www.mahavat.gov.in and (v) Failure to produce parties cannot be treated adversely against appellant
Kroner Investments Limited vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Additions made solely on the basis of AIR information are not sustainable in the eyes of law if the Revenue has not made any enquires to find out whether the AIR information was correct or not
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 law. If the assessee denies that it 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
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority vs.
DIT(E) (ITAT Mumbai)
S.12AA(3): The issue of withdrawal of s. 11 exemption in the light of s. 2(15) amendment is contentious and requires decision by larger Bench of the ITAT
No doubt, the assessee has relied on one decision by the hon’ble high court [CIT v. Sarvyodaya Ilakkiya Pannai [2012] 343 ITR 300 (Mad)], but then the said decision stands also considered by the tribunal in the case of Entertainment Society of Goa v. CIT [2013] 23 ITR (Trib) 636 (Panaji), relied upon by the Revenue, holding, with reference to decision by the hon’ble jurisdictional high court in CIT v. Thane Electricity Supply Ltd [1994] 206 ITR 727 (Bom), the decision by the non-jurisdictional high court as not binding. The rule of precedence, in case of conflicting views by the high courts, none of which is jurisdictional, is for the tribunal to follow that which appeals to its conscious. The appropriate course under the circumstances, even as indicated during the hearing in the instant proceedings – to no objection by either party, is that the matter be referred to the hon’ble President of the Tribunal for constituting a larger bench of the tribunal to decide the highly contentious issue raised by the assessee’s Ground No.1, decided differently by different coordinate benches of this tribunal, for uniform application across the tribunal
No comments:
Post a Comment