|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 1244 Records
-
2013 (7) TMI 1065
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the revised merit list and cancellation of appointments.
2. Propriety of re-evaluation of answer scripts by the respondent-Board.
3. Consideration of the appellants' continued service post-training.
Summary:
1. Validity of the Revised Merit List and Cancellation of Appointments:
The appeals challenge the High Court's dismissal of writ petitions and confirmation of the revised merit list by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (respondent-Board), which led to the cancellation of the appellants' appointments. The High Court upheld the revised merit list after selective re-evaluation of answer scripts due to defects in the Main Examination Papers.
2. Propriety of Re-evaluation of Answer Scripts by the Respondent-Board:
The respondent-Board re-evaluated the answer scripts after identifying defects in Paper II and incorrect model answers. The re-evaluation involved deleting eight incorrect questions and correcting model answers for another eight questions. The Division Bench found no irregularity or illegality in the re-evaluation process, concluding it was justified and did not cause prejudice to the candidates. The Supreme Court agreed, stating the respondent-Board's decision was valid and not arbitrary.
3. Consideration of the Appellants' Continued Service Post-Training:
The appellants, having completed training and served for over three years, sought sympathetic consideration. The Supreme Court acknowledged the undue hardship and career impact of ousting the appellants. Citing precedents, the Court directed the respondent-State to appoint the appellants at the bottom of the revised merit list, with suitable age relaxation for those who had become over-aged. The appointments were to be treated as fresh, without entitling the appellants to back wages, seniority, or other benefits from their earlier appointment.
The High Court's order was modified to this extent, and the appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs. The related Contempt Petition was dismissed as infructuous.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1064
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against CIT(A) order for A.Y. 2006-07, including short term and long term capital gain treatment, disallowance of V-SAT, Leaseline, and transaction charges u/s 40(a)(ia), and assessee's Cross Objection (C.O.) regarding disallowance u/s 14A and bad debt claim.
Short term and long term capital gain treatment: The Revenue challenged CIT(A)'s decision to allow short term and long term capital gain, arguing that the conversion of stock-in-trade into investment was not permitted. Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s order based on previous rulings and accepted the conversion of stocks, dismissing Revenue's appeal.
Disallowance of V-SAT and Leaseline charges: Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision to delete disallowance of V-SAT and Leaseline charges u/s 40(a)(ia) based on a High Court ruling that these charges do not constitute income. However, disallowance of transaction charges to stock exchange was sent back to AO for reassessment based on a subsequent High Court decision.
Assessee's Cross Objection (C.O.): Delay in filing C.O. was condoned. Disallowance u/s 14A was restored to AO for reevaluation based on High Court ruling on Rule 8D applicability. Bad debt claim of the assessee, a share broker, was allowed based on a Special Bench decision and subsequent High Court approval.
Conclusion: Revenue's appeal and assessee's C.O. were partly allowed, with various issues being decided in favor of both parties based on legal precedents and High Court rulings.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1063
The High Court of Gujarat admitted a Tax Appeal to consider substantial questions of law regarding the interpretation of entry 28A (ii) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and whether 'Sunglasses' can be classified as 'medical devices'. Shri Tanvish Bhatt waived service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1062
Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 194A(3)(ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding deduction of income tax on interest from compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Summary:
The respondents filed an Execution Petition (E.P.) in the lower Court to recover a balance amount from an insurance company, which had been remitted to the Income Tax Department as per Section 194A(3)(ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents argued that income tax should not be deducted as the interest accrued did not exceed Rs. 50,000 per claimant per financial year. The revision petitioner, however, contended that the interest paid should be spread over the period for which it was accrued. The Court referred to decisions from other High Courts and held that income tax should only be payable on interest accrued year after year. The insurance company had already deducted and remitted the TDS amount to the Income Tax Department, and the claimants could approach the Income Tax Assessing Authority for refund if needed. The Court found that the lower Court erred in directing the insurance company to remit the TDS amount again and set aside the order.
In conclusion, the civil revision petition was allowed, and the lower Court's order, along with the warrant for execution, was set aside.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1061
Issues:
The common grievance in the petitions is the non-entertainment or non-adjudication of refund applications due to pending appeals before the Supreme Court.
Judgment Details:
The petitioners claim entitlement to special additional duty refund based on a previous court decision. They argue that similarly situated assessees have had their refund applications entertained and decided upon by the court. The court notes that the petitioners should not be denied the same benefit solely because they were not parties to the previous applications. The court directs the concerned respondents to accept and adjudicate the refund applications on their merits promptly.
The court emphasizes that it has not made any determination on whether the petitioners are entitled to the refund claimed. The decision is based on the need for compliance with previous court orders and to avoid further litigation expenses for both petitioners and the revenue department.
The court concludes by directing the concerned respondents to handle similar cases of refund applications in a similar manner, without requiring individual orders from the court. The judgment aims to streamline the process and ensure fair treatment for all similarly situated assessees claiming special additional duty refunds.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1060
The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the Assessment Year 2006-07. The first issue was about provision for warranty being a contingent liability, which was covered by previous court decisions. The second issue was about AMC charges being bifurcated if the period extended beyond the financial year. The court did not find any substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1059
The judgment states that the petitioner is liable to pay income tax under the head 'capital gains' for a negotiated sale transaction after a land acquisition notification. The claim for exemption under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was denied. The Writ Petition was dismissed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1058
Issues Involved:
1. Late payment of employees' contribution to provident fund.
2. Inclusion of excise duty on finished goods/closing stock.
3. Disallowance of depreciation on provision of exchange rate difference.
4. Disallowance of MODVAT received on capital assets.
5. Disallowance of product development expenses.
6. Suppression of gross profit due to low GP ratio.
7. Notional interest on advance given to a wholly-owned subsidiary.
8. Disallowance of building repair expenses.
9. Disallowance of small charities expenses.
10. Disallowance of sales promotion expenses.
11. Disallowance of legal and professional charges.
12. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) for commission payment in foreign currency.
13. Addition on account of income accrued from arbitration award.
14. Disallowance of 1% of total expenses under "other expenses".
15. Disallowance of bad debts.
16. Addition in book profit u/s 115JB for provision for gratuity and bonus.
Summary of Judgment:
1. Late Payment of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund:
The Tribunal decided against the assessee, holding that section 43B is not applicable for delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF, and the amount should be added as income as per section 2(24)(x) r.w.s section 36(1)(va).
2. Inclusion of Excise Duty on Finished Goods/Closing Stock:
The issue was remanded to the CIT(A) to verify if the excise duty was paid before the due date of filing the return of income. If paid, no addition is justified; otherwise, the addition must be made.
3. Disallowance of Depreciation on Provision of Exchange Rate Difference:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision allowing depreciation, following the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd.
4. Disallowance of MODVAT Received on Capital Assets:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had reduced the cost of capital assets by the MODVAT credit, thus no further disallowance was warranted.
5. Disallowance of Product Development Expenses:
The Tribunal restored the AO's order, noting that the assessee had already adjusted the amount in the computation of income.
6. Suppression of Gross Profit Due to Low GP Ratio:
The Tribunal restored the AO's addition, finding no reasonable basis in the CIT(A)'s order for deleting the addition.
7. Notional Interest on Advance Given to a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary:
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's ground, following its decision in the assessee's own case for A.Y.1998-99.
8. Disallowance of Building Repair Expenses:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the expenses were capital in nature and not current repairs.
9. Disallowance of Small Charities Expenses:
The ground was not pressed by the assessee and was rejected.
10. Disallowance of Sales Promotion Expenses:
The Tribunal deleted the addition, noting that the amount had already been adjusted in the computation of income.
11. Disallowance of Legal and Professional Charges:
The Tribunal confirmed the addition but directed the AO to verify if the provision was reversed and offered as income in the subsequent year.
12. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) for Commission Payment in Foreign Currency:
The issue was remanded to the AO for fresh decision, following the Tribunal's direction in the assessee's own case for A.Y.1998-99.
13. Addition on Account of Income Accrued from Arbitration Award:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the issue was already decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years.
14. Disallowance of 1% of Total Expenses Under "Other Expenses":
The Tribunal rejected the assessee's ground, following its decision in the assessee's own case for A.Y.1998-99.
15. Disallowance of Bad Debts:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee could not establish that the business loss had crystallized during the year.
16. Addition in Book Profit u/s 115JB for Provision for Gratuity and Bonus:
The issue was remanded to the AO to verify if the provisions were made as per actuarial valuation and the Payment of Bonus Act, respectively.
Conclusion:
The appeals of the Revenue were partly allowed for statistical purposes, while the COs of the assessee were partly allowed, dismissed, or allowed for statistical purposes as indicated.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1057
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against order of CIT(A)-I, Rajkot for assessment year 2007-08 regarding disallowance of labour expenses u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
Summary:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment year 2007-08, where the AO disallowed labour expenses of &8377; 2,10,94,243/- u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The AO's reasoning was based on non-deduction of tax at source as reported in the Tax Audit report. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition citing precedents and legal provisions. The Revenue contended that tax should have been deducted as payments were made through a representative, while the Assessee argued that payments were below the threshold for TDS deduction and relied on relevant case laws.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition of &8377; 2,10,94,243/- based on findings that payments were made directly to labourers through their representative, and single payments did not exceed &8377; 20,000. The Assessee's counsel referenced judgments supporting non-applicability of sec.40(a)(ia) in such cases. The Revenue argued against the CIT(A)'s decision, citing a recent judgment by the Gujarat High Court.
After considering arguments from both sides and reviewing lower authorities' orders, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance. Despite the change in legal interpretation regarding sec.40(a)(ia), the Tribunal found in favor of the Assessee due to lack of evidence disproving the factual findings of the CIT(A). The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed based on the precedents and factual circumstances presented.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1056
Issues involved: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, applicability of retrospective exemption to maintenance and repair services of lifts/elevators in Naval buildings, waiver of pre-deposit, liability of Service Tax on services provided to immovable property.
Condonation of Delay: The appellant sought condonation of delay of 682 days in filing the appeal against the demand of Service Tax with interest and penalty imposed on them for providing maintenance and repair services of lifts/elevators in Naval buildings. The appellant claimed they did not file the appeal earlier due to a bona fide belief that they would not be liable to pay duty, based on advice from the Navy regarding the matter being under consideration of the Finance Ministry. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the retrospective exemption granted, condoned the delay in the interest of justice.
Applicability of Retrospective Exemption: The issue revolved around whether the maintenance and repair services of lifts/elevators provided by the appellant to immovable property, namely Naval buildings, were liable to Service Tax. The appellant argued that lifts/elevators are immovable property, citing a decision of the Bombay High Court, and therefore, the Service Tax liability arose from 16-6-2005, which was exempted retrospectively. The Tribunal agreed with this argument and allowed the appeal, stating that services rendered to immovable property were not liable to Service Tax prior to 16-6-2005, and exemption was granted retrospectively post that date.
Waiver of Pre-deposit: Considering the settled issue of retrospective exemption and the nature of services provided by the appellant, the Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit and proceeded to decide the appeal on its merits without requiring any pre-deposit from the appellant.
Liability of Service Tax on Services to Immovable Property: The Tribunal acknowledged that the work undertaken by the appellant constituted maintenance and repair services of lifts/elevators in Naval buildings, which were deemed as immovable property. Relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal concluded that services rendered to immovable property were not subject to Service Tax before 16-6-2005, and post that date, retrospective exemption was granted for such services provided to non-commercial buildings of the Government. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant with any consequential relief granted to them.
Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1055
Classification of Services - Business auxiliary services or Information Technology Service?- Whether assessees are liable to service tax under Business Auxiliary Service on the amount of commission and other remuneration received by eBIZ during the period 1-7-2003 to 31-3-2007?
Held that:- On going through Agreement between eBIZ assessee and also activities undertaken by the assessee, there is no doubt that assessees are involved in promotion or marketing of services of eBIZ and getting commission for the eBIZ for the same - as per explanation given under Section 65(19) Information Technology Service means any service in relation to designing, developing or maintaining of computer software or computerised data processing or system networking - the activities of the assessees are not covered under any of the activity defined under Information Technology Service - the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that assessees are providing BAS and not Information Technology Service is upheld.
Benefit of N/N. 13/2003, dated 1-3-2003 - Held that:- From going through the copy of the agreement between the assessee and M/s. eBIZ it is noticed that the activity of the assessees are more than the commission agent and moreover the assessee is also getting the commission in this case for purchase of goods not by the assessee but by his orbit of the associates. Also this notification applies to sale and purchase of goods whereas the present assessees are also engaged in promoting the sale and purchase of the services - benefit of notification cannot be allowed.
Extended period of limitation - Held that:- The assessees failed to get themselves registered with the service tax department and they did not make any payment of service tax within the prescribed time and did not file the prescribed returns in time as required under the service tax law - extended period rightly invoked.
Penalties - Held that:- The benefit of penalty equal to 25% of the tax amount is also not applicable to the assessees as they have not paid 25% of the tax amount as penalty within one month from the date of the order - penalty u/s 76 and 78 also upheld.
However, the benefit of cum-tax value is available to the assessees
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1054
Disallowance of claim made under work-in-progress adjusted against opening reserves - Held that:- Assessee has incurred expenses for developing maps under manual process and has been charging such expenditure as revenue expenditure under material consumption based on number of copies sold every year. In the year under review , the assessee has switched over from manual map making process to digital map making process and the balance amount relating to manual map making process lying under work-in-progress 10 was written off against opening reserves, following the guidelines issued by ICAI in AS 26. It was the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the expenditure incurred by the assessee as a revenue expenditure which was accounting under the head ‘material consumption’ in the normal course and as these expenses were incurred directly in connection with business, the claim of the assessee is in order. The Department could not rebut any of these findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In the circumstances, we find no good reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.
Disallowance of bad debts and non-recoverable advances - Held that:- We direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee as these debts were written off by the assessee in its books of account.
Disallowance of expenses relating to medical devices division at Waluj, Aurangabad under section 37 - Held that:- Merely because there was no revenue by way of sales, it cannot be said that the assessee has not carried on any business in the relevant assessment year. It is not in dispute that these expenses were not incurred for the purpose of business. The only ground on which the disallowance made is that the assessee sold its medical devices division during the assessment year and there is no income from such division till its sale during the assessment year and therefore, it is not allowable expenditure which in our opinion is not justified. In the circumstances, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance made. We reverse the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue. This ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed
Not allowing the carry forward loss/depreciation relating to amalgamating company namely TTK Medical Devices Ltd. in the hands of the assessee.
Addition on account of bad debts written off as these debts represent rental advance and deposits as nonrecoverable - Held that:- We find that the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment has disallowed thse deposits as part of other debts. There is no finding by the Assessing Officer that these amounts written off represent rental advance and deposits written off as non-recoverable which are not eligible to be allowed as bad debts under section 36(2)(i). In the circumstances, we feel that the Assessing Officer has to re-examine these debts afresh.
Addition made under section 41(1) on account of cessation of liability - Held that:- No valid reason to interfere with the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition especially, when the assessee had reversed and paid these creditors in subsequent assessment years and proving that there is no cessation of liability.
Expenditure incurred towards payment of logo charges is revenue in nature.
Clearing and forwarding agent charges fixing rate at 3.2% on sales, we find no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in holding that the depot service charges incurred by the assessee @ 3% on sales are reasonable and not excessive. In the circumstances, we affirm the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue. This ground of appeal of the Revenue is rejected.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1053
Issues involved: Service Tax demand under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service" for the period from October, 2009 to May, 2009. Demand of Service Tax on incentives received by the applicant for achieving targets given by service receivers.
Service Tax Demand under "Business Auxiliary Service": The applicant, engaged in travel agent services, faced a Service Tax demand of &8377; 53,92,092/- for using software provided by M/s. Amadeus. The Revenue claimed that the incentive received for software usage promoted M/s. Amadeus' business, making the applicant liable for Service Tax under "Business Auxiliary Service." Applicant argued they were only software users and not service providers to M/s. Amadeus. The Tribunal found that by using the software, the business of M/s. Amadeus was promoted, upholding the Service Tax liability. However, as the applicant believed they were not providing a service, the extended period of limitation was deemed not applicable, directing a pre-deposit of &8377; 9,00,000/-.
Short Payment of Service Tax: The applicant contended that they had paid excess Service Tax in earlier periods, which was adjusted in the impugned period, justifying the short payment. The Tribunal agreed that the earlier excess payment was sufficient for the pre-deposit requirement, waiving the need for further pre-deposit on this count.
Incentive Receipts for Achieving Targets: The Tribunal recognized that the applicant was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 22/97 for incentive receipts related to achieving targets. Consequently, the Tribunal found merit in waiving the pre-deposit requirement on this account as well.
Conclusion: The Tribunal directed the applicant to make a pre-deposit of &8377; 9,00,000/- within eight weeks, with compliance due by 10-10-2013. Upon compliance, the need for pre-deposit of the remaining amount of Service Tax, interest, and penalty was stayed during the appeal's pendency.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1052
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi rejected the appeal as the appellant failed to comply with the condition of depositing Rs. 10 lakhs within six weeks. The Revenue can now take steps to realize the adjudicated liability.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1051
The High Court of Patna admitted Letters Patent Appeal No. 684 of 2012 to be heard with L.P.A. No. 141 of 2012. Pending the appeal, there is an interim stay on the execution of the impugned judgment dated 28th February 2012. The respondent-writ petitioner must appear before the customs authority when summoned. Interlocutory Application No. 4964 of 2012 has been disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1050
The Bombay High Court clarified that the petitioner can bring his lawyer for interrogation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, as per Supreme Court judgments. The lawyer must be within hearing distance. The writ petition was disposed of based on this clarification.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1049
Issues Involved:
The appeal involves challenging the constitutional validity of The Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 and The Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Rules, 2004 as amended by The Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) (Amendment) Rules, 2005. The main contention is that the Act is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament and the Rules are ultra vires the provisions of the Act.
Judgment Details:
Challenge to Constitutional Validity:
The appellants challenged the orders of the High Court, arguing that they are contrary to settled legal principles and detrimental to public health. They contended that the Act was enacted by Parliament based on previous court observations and the rules were framed to give effect to the Act's objectives. The High Court's stay on the rules was criticized as unjustified.
Court's Observations:
The Supreme Court held that while the constitutional validity of the Act and Rules was pending before the High Court, passing interim orders stultifying the statutory provisions was not justified. The Court emphasized that in matters challenging legislation and rules, courts should be cautious in granting interim relief unless the provisions are clearly unconstitutional.
Public Health Concerns:
The Court highlighted the adverse impact of tobacco consumption on public health, particularly on vulnerable sections of society. Statistics on deaths caused by tobacco-related diseases were presented to underscore the seriousness of the issue.
Decision and Directions:
The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's orders were set aside. The Court expressed reservations about the Union of India's handling of the case and emphasized the need for sincere representation of public interests in legal matters. The Central Government and State Governments were directed to diligently enforce the provisions of the Act and Rules.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's judgment focused on upholding legal principles, protecting public health, and ensuring responsible advocacy in matters of public interest and legislation. The decision emphasized the importance of balanced legal proceedings and the need for government commitment to implementing laws for the welfare of the people.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1048
Issues involved: Confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2008-09 based on unexplained investment in jewellery found during search u/s 132 conducted on 19th July, 2007.
The appeal filed by the assessee challenged the penalty of Rs. 21,230 imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2008-09, which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) -40, Mumbai. The assessee, deriving income from various sources, was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for jewellery worth Rs. 62,447 claimed during assessment proceedings post the search conducted on 19th July, 2007. The AO treated this as deemed income u/s 69A and levied the penalty. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty citing finality of the quantum addition in the assessee's case, leading to the appeal before the ITAT.
During the appeal, the assessee relied on a decision of the ITAT in a similar case, arguing that penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1)(c) if the search was initiated after 01.06.2007, as per section 271 AAA. The Ld. DR, however, supported the AO and Ld.CIT(A) orders. The ITAT noted that the search in the Kanakia Group, to which the assessee belonged, was conducted on 19.07.2007. As per section 271 AAA, if the search was initiated after 01.06.2007, penalty can only be levied under that section, not u/s 271(1)(c). Since the AO incorrectly applied the penalty provision, the ITAT held that the Ld.CIT(A) was unjustified in confirming the penalty, leading to the deletion of the penalty.
Result: The ITAT allowed the appeal filed by the Assessee, and the impugned penalty of Rs. 21,230 was deleted.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1047
Stay of impugned order and judgement - Held that: - As the main appeal is admitted on the question of law framed and to see that the main appeal does not become infructuous, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is stayed - application disposed off.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1046
Issues Involved:
1. Re-opening of the assessment (Ground No.1 and 2)
2. Year of taxability (Ground No.3 and 4)
3. Share of income (Ground No.5) and initiation of penalty proceedings (Ground No.6)
Summary:
Re-opening of the assessment (Ground No.1 and 2):
The assessee contested the re-opening of the assessment for AY 2007-08, arguing that the capital gains had already been disclosed and assessed in AY 2006-07. The CIT(A) upheld the re-opening based on information from the ADIT and the fact that the assessment for AY 2007-08 was accepted u/s 143(1). However, the Tribunal found that the AO had no proper reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment since the capital gains were already offered and assessed in AY 2006-07. The Tribunal concluded that the re-opening of the assessment was not justified.
Year of taxability (Ground No.3 and 4):
The primary issue was whether the capital gains should be taxed in AY 2006-07 or AY 2007-08. The assessee argued that the transfer of property was completed in FY 2005-06 (AY 2006-07) based on an agreement to sell and the receipt of consideration. The AO contended that the transfer occurred only after the registration of the sale deed on 23/08/2006. The Tribunal, referencing the principles established in Chatrabhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT, held that the transfer was complete when the agreement to sell was signed, and possession was handed over in part performance u/s 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Thus, the capital gains were correctly offered in AY 2006-07.
Share of income (Ground No.5):
The AO had disputed the assessee's share of the property and added part of the amount received by the assessee's father. The Tribunal found that the transaction was concluded in October 2005 when the assessee and his family members entered into an agreement to sell their undivided share in the property. The subsequent death of the assessee's father and the recitals in the sale deed did not affect the conclusion that the transfer occurred in FY 2005-06.
Initiation of penalty proceedings (Ground No.6):
The Tribunal considered the ground regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings as premature since it was only the initiation and not the conclusion of the proceedings. This ground was rejected.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the capital gains were correctly offered in AY 2006-07, and the re-opening of the assessment for AY 2007-08 was not justified. The initiation of penalty proceedings was deemed premature.
............
|
9911796707
