HC (BOM) : Taxing the bogus share holders are IT Department's job, company cannot be taxed.

IT : Where revenue urged that assessee company received share application money from bogus shareholders, it was for revenue to proceed by reopening assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax and not to add same to assessee's income as unexplained cash credit

■■■

[2017] 80 taxmann.com 272 (Bombay)

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Commissioner of Income-tax- 1

v.

Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.*

M.S. SANKLECHA AND A.K. MENON, JJ.

IT APPEAL NO. 1613 OF 2014†

MARCH  20, 2017 

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share Capital) - Assessment year 2008-09 - Whether proviso to section 68 introduced by Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1-4-2013, would not have retrospective effect - Held, yes - Whether where assessee-company had established identity, genuineness and capacity of shareholders who had subscribed to its shares, Assessing Officer was not justified in adding amount of share capital subscription as unexplained credit - Held, yes - Whether where revenue urged that assessee had received share application money from bogus shareholders, it was for Income-tax Officers to proceed by reopening assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law and it did not entitle revenue to add same to assessee's income as unexplained cash credit - Held, yes [Para 3] [In favour of assessee]

FACTS

■		During the previous year relevant to subject assessment year the assessee had increased its share capital from Rs. 2.50 lakhs to Rs. 83.74 lakhs. The asessee had collected share premium to the extent of Rs. 6.69 crores and charged share premium at Rs. 190 per share. The assessee furnished the list of its shareholders, copy of the share application form, copy of share certificate and Form No. 2 filed with the Registrar of Companies.
■		The Assessing Officer invoked section 68 to treat the amount of Rs. 7.3 crores, i.e., the aggregate of the issue price and the premium on the shares issued as unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section 68.
■		On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by holding that the Assessing Officer had given no reason to conclude that the investment made was not genuine. He observed that if the amounts have been subscribed by bogus shareholders it was for the revenue to proceed against such shareholders. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in adding the amount of share capital subscription including the share premium as unexplained credit under section 68.
■		On further appeal, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had established the identity, genuineness and capacity of the shareholders who had subscribed to its shares and upheld the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).
■		In instant appeal to the High Court, the revenue contended that proviso to section 68 which was introduced with effect from 1-4-2013 would apply in the facts of the present case even for assessment year 2008-09.

HELD

■		The proviso to section 68 has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1-4-2013. Thus, it would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14 onwards and not for the subject assessment year. In fact, before the Tribunal, it was not even the case of the Revenue that section 68 as in force during the subject years has to be read/understood as though the proviso added subsequently effective only from 1-4-2013 was its normal meaning. The Parliament did not introduced to proviso of section 68, with retrospective effect nor does the proviso to introduced states that it was introduced 'for removal of doubts' or that it is 'declaratory'. Therefore, it is not open to give it retrospective effect, by proceeding on the basis that the addition of the proviso to section 68 is immaterial and does not change the interpretation of section 68 both before and after the adding of the proviso.
■		In view of the matter the three essential tests while confirming the section 68 laid down by the Court namely the genuineness of the transaction, identity and the capacity of the investor have all been examined by the impugned order of the Tribunal and on fact it was found satisfied. Further it was a submission on behalf of the Revenue that such large amount of share premium gives rise to suspicion on the genuineness (identity) of the shareholders, i.e., they are bogus. The Apex Court in a case in this context to the pre-amended section 68 has held that where the revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income-tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholder and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the revenue to add the same to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit. [Para 3]

CASES REFERRED TO

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 (SC) (para 3).

Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Percy Pardiwala, Senior Counsel and Atul Jasani for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

1. This Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 23rd April, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment Year 2008-09.

2. Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue urges the following re-framed questions of law for our consideration:—

"(i)		Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.7,53,50,000/- under Section 68 of the Act being share capital/share premium received during the year when the Assessing Officer held the same as unexplained cash credit?
(ii)		Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in restricting the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act only to the amount of expenditure claimed by the assessee in the absence of any such restriction under Section 14A and/or Rule 8D?"

3. Regarding question no.(i):—

(a)		During the previous relevant to the subject Assessment Year the respondent-assessee had increased its share capital from Rs.2,50,000/- to Rs.83.75 lakhs. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the respondent had collected share premium to the extent of Rs.6.69 crores. Consequently he called upon the respondent to justify the charging of share premium at Rs.190/- per share. The respondent furnished the list of its shareholders, copy of the share application form, copy of share certificate and Form no.2 filed with the Registrar of Companies. The justification for charging share premium was on the basis of the future prospects of the business of the respondent-assessee. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation/justification of the respondent and invoked Section 68 of the Act to treat the amount of Rs.7.53 crores i.e. the aggregate of the issue price and the premium on the shares issued as unexplained cash credit within the meaning of Section 68 of the Act.
(b)		Being aggrieved, the respondent carried the issue in appeal. By an order dated 24th May, 2011 the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) deleted the addition of Rs.7.53 crores made by the Assessing Officer by holding that the Assessing Officer had given no reason to conclude that the investment made (inclusive of premium) was not genuine. This inspite of evidence being furnished by the respondent in support of the genuineness of the transactions. Further he held that the appropriate valuation of the shares is for the subscriber/investor to decide and not a subject of enquiry by the Revenue. Finally he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. [2008] 216 CTR 195 to hold that if the amounts have been subscribed by bogus shareholders it is for the Revenue to proceed against such shareholders. Therefore it held the Assessing Officer was not justified in adding the amount of share capital subscription including the share premium as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act.
(c)		Being aggrieved, the Revenue carried the issue in the appeal to the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal holds that the respondent-assessee had established the identity, genuineness and capacity of the shareholders who had subscribed to its shares. The identity was established by the very fact that the detailed names, addresses of the shareholders, PAN numbers, bank details and confirmatory letters were filed. The genuineness of the transaction was established by filing a copy of share application form, the form filed with the Registrar of Companies and as also bank details of the shareholders and their confirmations which would indicate both the genuineness as also the capacity of the shareholders to subscribe to the shares. Further the Tribunal while upholding the finding of CIT(A) also that the amount received on issue of share capital alongwith the premium received thereon, would be on capital receipt and not in the revenue field. Further reliance was also placed upon the decision of Apex Court in Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. (supra) to uphold the finding of the CIT(A) and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
(d)		Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue contends that proviso to Section 68 of the Act which was introduced with effect from 1st April, 2013 would apply in the facts of the present case even for A.Y. 2008-09. The basis of the above submission is that the de hors the proviso also the requirements as set out therein would have to be satisfied.
(e)		We find that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013. Thus it would be effective only from the Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards and not for the subject Assessment Year. In fact, before the Tribunal, it was not even the case of the Revenue that Section 68 of the Act as in force during the subject years has to be read/understood as though the proviso added subsequently effective only from 1st April, 2013 was its normal meaning. The Parliament did not introduce to proviso to Section 68 of the Act with retrospective effect nor does the proviso so introduced states that it was introduced "for removal of doubts" or that it is "declaratory". Therefore it is not open to give it retrospective effect, by proceeding on the basis that the addition of the proviso to Section 68 of the Act is immaterial and does not change the interpretation of Section 68 of the Act both before and after the adding of the proviso. In any view of the matter the three essential tests while confirming the pre-proviso Section 68 of the Act laid down by the Courts namely the genuineness of the transaction, identity and the capacity of the investor have all been examined by the impugned order of the Tribunal and on facts it was found satisfied. Further it was a submission on behalf of the Revenue that such large amount of share premium gives rise to suspicion on the genuineness (identity) of the shareholders i.e. they are bogus. The Apex Court in Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. (supra) in the context to the pre-amended Section 68 of the Act has held that where the Revenue urges that the amount of share application money has been received from bogus shareholders then it is for the Income Tax Officer to proceed by reopening the assessment of such shareholders and assessing them to tax in accordance with law. It does not entitle the Revenue to add the same to the assessee's income as unexplained cash credit.
(f)		In the above circumstances and particularly in view of the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, the proposed question of law does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained.

4. (a) Admit the substantial question of law at (ii) above.

(b) The issue arising in question no. (ii) is essentially whether application of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act Rules would permit the Revenue to disallow expenditure not claimed i.e. much larger than the expenditure / debited in earning its total income. The Counsel inform us that there is no decision on this issue of any Court available and it would affect a large number of cases where similar issues arise. Therefore, this issue would require an early determination. In the above view, at the request of the Counsel, the appeal is kept for hearing on 17th April, 2017 at 3.00 p.m., subject to overnight part-heard.

5. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Tribunal. This would enable the Tribunal to keep the papers and proceedings relating to the present appeal available, to be produced when sought for by the Court.

6. Stand over to 17th April, 2017.

Penalty leviable even if assessed income is equal to returned income.

[2010] 3 taxmann.com 99 (Mum. - ITAT)

Penalty is imposable under main provisions of section 271(1)(c) and there is no need to refer to any Explanations

·         ·        Merely because case of the assessee is not covered by any particular Explanation to section 271(1)(c), does not mean that penalty cannot be imposed when there is no difficulty in determining tax sought to be evaded

ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES 'F' : MUMBAI

Harish P. Mashruwale HUF

v.

ACIT

ITA No. 4996/Mum/2007

March 30, 2010

RELEVANT EXTRACTS:

**       **                                            ** 

** **          **       **      

6.       The assessee has challenged the levy of penalty on three grounds. Firstly, the assessee has argued that the penalty proceedings have been initiated for concealing the particulars of income but the penalty has been imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and, therefore, penalty is legally invalid. Reliance has placed on several judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, as mentioned in Para 4 earlier. We are unable to accept the argument advanced because the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the judgments cited held that penalty imposed on the ground different from the ground on which it was initiated was not proper because in such a case it could not be said that the assessee had been given reasonable opportunity of hearing in relation to the ground on which penalty had been imposed. The position in the present case is different. In this case the assessee had been given opportunity. In fact, the assessee had itself raised this ground before the Assessing Officer during the proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and, therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee had no opportunity in the matter. Secondly, it has been argued that Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) and is not applicable as there is no addition to the total income and thirdly it has been submitted that the Explanation 4 relating to computation of tax sought to be evaded is also not applicable as the returned income and assessee income remained the same. On careful consideration we do not find any merit in these arguments. We agree with the view taken by the CIT (A) that the various Explanations only explain the ambiguity in the provisions relating to imposition of penalty and merely because the case of the assessee is not covered by any particular Explanation, does not mean that penalty cannot be imposed when there is no difficulty in determining tax sought to be evaded. Under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) penalty is prescribed for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and quantum of penalty is based on tax sought to be evaded. In this case, tax sought to be evaded is very clear as the tax rate applicable is 30% whereas the assessee has paid 20%. The tax sought to be evaded was because of the lower rate of tax paid and not because of any addition to the income and, therefore, provisions of Explanation 1 are not applicable. The penalty is imposable under the main provision and there is no need to refer to any Explanations. As regards the merit of the case, the claim of the assessee that amount paid for receiving the gift was from the cash received on surrender of tenancy right is not supported by any evidence. The gifts had also been received much before the surrender of tenancy. The amount has therefore been rightly assessed as income from other sources attracting tax rate of 30 %, which has also been affirmed by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal. The assessee has sought to evade tax by paying tax at lower ate. The penalty in our view is imposable as held earlier under the main provisions of section 271(1)(c).

7.       In view of the foregoing discussion, we see no infirmity in the order of CIT (A) in confirming the penalty and the same is, therefore, upheld.

MACHINE TO MACHINE COMMUNICATIONS

 

MACHINE TO MACHINE COMMUNICATIONS

Machine to Machine (`M2M' for short) communications, in which data is transferred among communicating machines with little or no human intervention. It refers to technologies that allow both wireless and wired systems to communicate with other devices of same ability. It has been emerged around for some time before. The industry has come into prominence because of widespread availability of wireless networks.

M2M uses a device, such as a sensor or meter, to capture an event such as temperature, inventory level, etc. which is relayed through a network (wireless, wired or hybrid) to an application (software program), that translates the captured event into meaningful information. This is accomplished through the use of telemetry, the language machines use when in communication with each other. Such communication was originally accomplished by having a remote network of machines relay information back to a central hub for analysis, which would then be rerouted into a system like a personal computer.

The origin of M2M communications is cloudy because of the many different possibilities of its inception. It began around the year 2000, possibly earlier, when cellular technology first began to learn to connect directly to other computer systems. In 2009 the technology witnessed its development in U.S. and in Europe. In early 2010 in the U.S., some telecom companies began to work together in the creation of a M2M site, which will serve as a hub for developers in the field of M2M communication electronics. In March 2010, Sprint and Axeda Corporation announced their strategic alliance for global M2M solutions. In January 2011, Aeris Communications Inc. announced that it is providing M2M telematics services for Hyundai Motor Corporation. Partnerships like these make it easier, faster and more cost-efficient for businesses to use M2M. In June 2010, mobile messaging operator tyntec announced the availability of its high-reliability SMS services for M2M applications.

However, modern M2M communication has expanded beyond a one-to-one connection and changed into a system of networks that transmits data to personal appliances. The expansion of wireless networks across the world has made it far easier for M2M communication to take place and has lessened the amount of power and time necessary for information to be communicated between machines. These networks also allow an array of new business opportunities and connections between consumers and producers in terms of the products being sold.

Personal health monitoring, tracking and tracing in supply chain management, fleet management and tracking, remote security sensing, smart electricity and gas meters, smart grids, intelligent traffic control, all involve M2M. M2M is strengthened by availability of mobile networks. Mobile operators are showing interests in M2M to improve their revenues and profit margins.

M2M applications have four components which are as follows:

1) Collection of data

2) Transmission of selected data through a communication network

3) Assessment of the data

4) Response to the available information.

Machines are new subscribers of the cellular networks. It is estimated that the world would have 50 billion connected machines in the year 2020. This would far exceed the connected humans even if the entire world predicted population 7.5 billion by the year 2020 are to be connected. M2M networks need to be reliable, scalable, secure and manageable. The possibility of number of devices connected increasing exponentially requires optimizations to avoid network congestion and system overload. The network would need to support many types of M2M devices having different characteristics and requirement for running different applications. It has to be ensured that the M2M services and devices at a low cost level for mass market acceptance. These challenges can be resolved by standardization. Various bodies are current engaging in this work.

M2M has various applications. Some of the applications are as follows:

City Automation:

Sensors, pumps, valves, meters;
Power, light, elevator control;
Grid control;
Waste management;
Billing of utilities.
Sales & Payment:

Point of sales;
Vending machines;
Loyalty concepts;
Gaming and entertainment.
Home:

Smart meters;
Alarms and security;
Surveillance cameras;
Heating, gas, water;
Garbage and garden.
Security & Surveillance:

Access control;
Alarm system;
Public surveillance;
Congestion and movement monitoring;
Urban management.
Health:

Patient monitoring;
Remote diagnostics;
Activity monitoring;
Web access telemedicine;
Personal security.
Tracking & Tracing:

Fleet management;
Order management;
Vehicle diagnostic;
Navigation;
Traffic/weather information;
Location service;
Emission control;
Toll collections.
The above are only examples. There are many applications in it. Machine-to-machine communication appears to have a bright future. It's a flexible technology that uses common equipment in new ways. Every day, businesses, engineers, scientists, doctors and many others are finding new ways to use this new communications tool.

By: Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN
Dated: - December 16, 2011

TAX EVASION VIA SHELL COMPANIES

 

TAX EVASION VIA SHELL COMPANIESEnron showed the world the trick of hiding accounting losses in special purpose vehicles (SPV). Subsequent accounting standards have ensured that interests in SPVs are at least disclosed if not morphed into the accounts of the company that controls the SPV. It was not long before the ingenious conjured up ways of using SPVs as a tax planning vehicle. SPVs had an unlikely ally in double tax avoidance agreements (DTAA) which did their best to ensure that income from cross-border transactions are taxed only in one country. Difficulties arose in deciding which. The Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) recently ruled on the tax impact on what they perceived to be a shell company created with the lone purpose of enabling an acquisition. Muriex Alliance (MA) and Groupe Industrial Marcel Dassault (GIMD) were two French companies that joined hands to create a subsidiary named "ShanH". MA got into a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) to acquire the shares of Shantha Biotechnics Ltd, based out of India with ShanH being the permitted assignee. Share transactions were continued with GIMD acquiring 20 per cent of the shares from MA in ShanH. Soon, they found a partner to offload their stake in ShanH to a French multinational Sanofi. After the kerfuffle created by the Vodafone case, GIMD decided to play it safe and approached the AAR for a ruling on whether the sale of shares would be taxable in India or France. Normal logic coupled with the provisions of the DTAA would give an impression that the transaction would be taxable in France since all the companies involved were in France. They did not consider the fact that the underlying asset is an Indian company.

AAR RULING

The AAR summed up the issue at hand. A company in France, invests in acquiring shares in an Indian company. Ultimately it acquires a controlling interest. For this purpose, it creates a fully-owned subsidiary. The shares are taken in the name of the subsidiary. Subsequently, another company also comes in and acquires a part of the shares in the subsidiary. The only asset of the subsidiary is the shares in the Indian company. It has no other business. The two shareholders of the subsidiary then decide to sell the shares of the subsidiary to another company. By that process, what really passes is the underlying assets and the control of the Indian company. This transaction generates a profit. By repeating the process, the control over the Indian assets and business can pass from hand to hand without incurring any liability to tax in India, if the transaction is accepted at face value. It ruled that a DTAA has to be construed on its terms.

TRANSFER OF SHARES

A literal construction of paragraph 5 of the DTAA would lead to the position that the transfer of shares of ShanH, in this case, can be taxed only in France. The contention of the Revenue was that the situs of the underlying assets cannot be ignored and the underlying assets and controlling interest are that of a company incorporated in India and a resident of India. The AAR found that what is involved in this transaction, is an alienation of the assets and controlling interest of an Indian company. It will logically follow that the transactions gone through are part of a scheme for avoidance of tax and the scheme has to be ignored, that the gain from the transaction is taxable in India. A literal interpretation of the DTAA would show that it is not the alienation of the shares of an Indian company but a purposive construction of the said paragraph of the treaty that led the AAR to the conclusion that the capital gains arising out of the transaction is taxable in India. The essence of the transaction takes within its sweep, various rights including a change in the controlling interest of an Indian company having assets, business and income in India. The AAR concluded that the capital gains would be taxed in India, though the privileges of the DTAA would not be denied. The decision of the AAR will be a wake-up call to entities that use shell companies as investment vehicles. The age-old accounting rule of substance over form will come into play and one can no longer quote liberally from the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in McDowell and Co Ltd and Azadi Bachao Andolan which blessed tax planning measures as long as they are within the four corners of the law. Entities interpreted both the tax planning measures and the four corners of the law very liberally. While it would be appropriate to interpret the former liberally, the latter has to be interpreted extremely rigidly. - www.thehindubusinessline.com

LtT & ST gains from PMS transactions taxable as business profits (ITAT Delhi)

  <!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlStartT|**|-~

M/s. Radials International vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

Long-term & short-term gains from PMS transactions taxable as business profits

The assessee offered LTCG & STCG on sale of shares which had arisen through a Portfolio Management Scheme of Kotak and Reliance. The investments were shown under the head "investments" in the accounts and were made out of surplus funds. Delivery of the shares was taken. The AO & CIT (A) held that as the transactions by the PMS manager were frequent and the holding period was short, the LTCG & STCG were assessable as business profits. On appeal by the assessee, HELD dismissing the appeal:

In a Portfolio Management Scheme, the choice of securities and its period of holding is left to the portfolio manager and the assessee has no control. Only the portfolio manager can deal with the Demat account of the assessee. While, at the time of depositing the amount, the assessee will make entry in his books of account as investment in PMS, he is not aware of the transactions in the shares being entered into by the portfolio manager on his behalf as his agent. Since the assessee comes to know about the purchase and sale of shares under PMS after the expiry of the quarter, the accounting treatment in the books of the assessee in respect of shares purchased/sold by the portfolio manager under PMS cannot be entered in the books of the assessee. It is at the end of the year the shares available in the DEMAT account can be entered. Therefore, at the time of deposit of amount, the intention of the assessee was to maximize the profit. As the purchase and sale of shares under PMS is not in the control of the assessee at all, it cannot be said that the assessee had invested money under PMS with intention to hold shares as investment. The portfolio manager carried out trading in shares on behalf of his clients to maximize the profits. Therefore, it cannot be said that shares were held by the assessee as investment. The fact that the transactions were frequent and its volume was high indicated that the portfolio manager had done trading on behalf of the assessee. The fact that the shares remaining at the end of the year were shown under the head `investment' makes no difference. Even the LTCG is assessable as business profits and s. 10(38) exemption is not available. The fact that the AO took a contrary view in the preceding year is irrelevant. There is no difference between similar transactions carried out by an individual in shares and the transactions carried out by portfolio manager. There is, however, a difference between investment in a mutual fund and PMS.

Note: See the contrary view in Radha Birju Patel (Mum) ARA Trading & Investments (Pune). See also KRA Holding & Trading (Pune) & Homi K. Bhabha (Mum)

Related Judgements
ARA Trading & Investments Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Pune) On facts, as the assessee had engaged a portfolio manager to look after its' investments and all decisions to buy and sell were taken by the portfolio manager and not by the asessee, the assessee cannot be called a "dealer"
ITO vs. Radha Birju Patel (ITAT Mumbai) Transactions carried out via Portfolio Management Scheme are clearly in the nature of transactions meant for maximization of wealth rather encashing the profits on appreciation in value of shares. The very nature of Portfolio Management Scheme is such that the investments made by the assessee are protected and enhanced…
ACIT vs. Vinod K. Nevatia (ITAT Mumbai) Primarily, the intention with which an assessee starts his activity is the most important factor. If shares are purchased from own funds, with a view to keep the funds in equity shares to earn considerable return on account of enhancement in the value of share over a period then…

S. 132: Cash seized in search has to be adjusted against Advance Tax (itat, rAJKOT)

  <!--~-|**|PrettyHtmlStartT|**|-~

Ram S. Sarda vs. DCIT (ITAT Rajkot)

S. 132: Cash seized in search has to be adjusted against "Advance Tax"

Pursuant to a search u/s 132, cash was seized from the assessee and third parties and assessed as the assessee's income. Though the assessee requested that the said seized cash be treated as payment of "advance tax", the AO ignored the same and levied interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C on the basis that advance tax had not been paid. On appeal, the CIT (A) relied on Central Provinces Manganese 160 ITR 961 (SC) and held that the ground was not maintainable. It was also held that cash seized from third parties could not be treated as the assessee's payment of advance tax. On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal:

(i) S. 246 permits an appeal to be filed when the assessee "denies his liability to be assessed". The levy of interest u/s 234A to 234C is a part of the process of assessment. The expression "denies his liability to be assessed" does not mean a total denial of liability. Even a partial denial of the assessment i.e. of the liability to pay interest is covered and the appeal is maintainable (C. P Manganese 160 ITR 961 (SC) explained, Kanpur Coal Syndicate 53 ITR 225 (SC) & JK Synthetics 119 CTR 222 (SC) followed);

(ii) On merits, s. 132B (1) provides that the assets seized u/s 132 may be adjusted against the amount of any "existing liability" and the liability determined on completion of the assessment. The expression "existing liability" cannot be ascribed a restricted meaning. The liability to pay advance tax is an "existing liability" and so the cash seized ought to have been adjusted against that liability. The cash seized from third parties, having been assessed in the assessee's hands, retains the same character as cash seized from the assessee (Sudhakar Shetty 10 DTR (Mum) 173 followed).

Related Judgements
Atma Ram Properties Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) S. 147: AO must specify what facts are failed to be disclosed. Lapse by AO no ground for reopening if primary facts disclosed In AY 2001-02, the AO assessed advances of Rs. 1.56 crores received from a group concern as "deemed dividend" u/s 2(22)(e). In appeal, the CIT…
Vineetkumar Raghavjibhai Bhalodia vs. ITO (ITAT Rajkot) S. 56(2)(v) exempts gifts from a "relative". Though the definition of the term "relative" does not specifically include a Hindu Undivided Family, a `HUF" constitutes all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their mothers, wives or widows and unmarried daughters. As all these persons fall in…

tongue twister

 

English is a rich language in every sense of the term. Its already-staggering wealth of words is ever-expanding, thanks to the open arms with which it welcomes words from other languages. The official website of the Oxford English Dictionary tells us that the second edition of the 20-volume dictionary contains full entries for 171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words.

Yet, there are occasions when one feels the language falls short of an apt word or phrase to describe a situation, person or emotion. Mercifully, other languages can fill this gap. Imagine someone says something to you that leaves you so outraged that you're at loss for words to return the compliment. Later, thinking about it, the words come to you but by then the moment is gone. English has no term to convey such slow-to-respond wit. French has. It's called l'esprit de l'escalier (literally, staircase wit).

Of course, one always has the option to forget and forgive. As they say in Gujarati, "Manav matra/bhool ne patra" (to err is human)... One could go a step further and turn the other cheek. We all know the word for that: Gandhigiri. However, two cheeks are all one has. So, would it not be fair to hit back the third time? Well, there is one language which has the ready word for such a policy. The word Ilunga comes from Tshiluba, a branch of Bantu language spoken in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Actually, after the third insult, the aggrieved person could be forgiven for thinking that the aggressor's face is backfeifengesicht - in German, that means 'a face badly in need of a fist'.

Talking of faces, there's a word in Arabic for resolving a dispute without any party losing face: tarradhin. It isn't the same as 'compromise' but a positive win-win for the two sides. Unfortunately, there's no dearth of bystanders who hate such outcomes. Not only because it robs them of a piece of precious schadenfreude - German for pleasure derived from the misfortune of others - but also because it may verily send them into deep missgunst (German word conveying the feeling of not liking it when something good happens to someone you don't like).

Indians can claim credit for the ultimate terminological jugaad called 'miskaal' ( missed call). But while miskaal says a lot without saying anything, for the exact sense in which we use it we have to turn to the Czech word prozvonit. This means calling a mobile phone and disconnecting after the first ring so that the other person calls back. Naturally, that saves the first caller the outgoing call charge.

The point is obvious. In the age of Twitter, the key word is not economy (of words) but freakonomy. We need words and phrases that can pack in a whole lot of quirky sense. In fact, wordsmiths would do well to coin new words for some situations and behaviours which are being reported frequently.

For example, we need a word for the newly revealed practice of claiming the full airfare despite travelling on a concessional ticket so as 'to use the surplus for the benefit of the poor and downtrodden'. Similarly, one commonly hears celebrities say by way of self-defence, 'I was quoted out of context'. Could we not find a single word for that? Ditto for someone doing a semi-nude scene because 'the story demanded it'. Or for inviting someone to one's wedding and hoping that he doesn't turn up.

Last but not least, we need a word for a frequently reported eventuality in India. It has to do with a high and mighty personality developing chest pain on being arrested for a crime, so much so that he requires immediate admission in a swanky hospital. How about creating a neat four-letter word for such a tragic circumstance?

HC(DEL) : No time limit prescribed for filing an application for compounding of an offense

Vikram Singh vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)

S. 279: As there is no time limit prescribed for filing an application for compounding of an offense, the CBDT is not entitled to reject an application on the ground of 'inordinate delay'. The CBDT has no jurisdiction to demand that the assessee pay a 'pre-deposit' as a pre-condition to considering the compounding application. The larger question as whether in the garb of a Circular the CBDT can prescribe the compounding fee in the absence of such fee being provided for either in the statute or prescribed under the rules is left open

The Court finds nothing in Section 279 of the Act or the Explanation thereunder to permit the CBDT to prescribe such an onerous and irrational procedure which runs contrary to the very object of Section 279 of the Act. The CBDT cannot arrogate to itself, on the strength of Section 279 of the Act or the Explanation thereunder, the power to insist on a ‘pre-deposit’ of sorts of the compounding fee even without considering the application for compounding. Indeed Mr Kaushik was unable to deny the possibility, even if theoretical, of the application for compounding being rejected despite the compounding fee being deposited in advance. If that is the understanding of para 11(v) of the above Circular by the Department, then certainly it is undoubtedly ultra vires Section 279 of the Act. The Court, accordingly, clarifies that the Department cannot on the strength of para 11(v) of the Circular dated 23rd December 2014 of the CBDT reject an application for compounding either on the ground of limitation or on the ground that such application was not accompanied by the compounding fee or that the compounding fee was not paid prior to the application being considered on merits

S. 37(1): Distinction between capital & revenue expenditure explained

 

Airport Authority of India vs. CIT (Delhi High Court Full Bench)

January, 04th 2012
S. 37(1): Distinction between capital & revenue expenditure explained

The assessee incurred expenditure on removal of encroachments and claimed the same as a revenue deduction on the ground that the expenditure was incurred in the normal course of the business. The AO, CIT (A) & Tribunal rejected the claim on the basis that the assessee had acquired an advantage of an enduring nature. The High Court (for an earlier year, Airport Authority of India vs. CIT 303 ITR 433) upheld the view of the authorities that the expenditure was capital in nature. For the present year, the issue was referred to the Full Bench. HELD by the Full Bench reversing the lower authorities:

The question that has to be considered is whether the expenditure is incurred for initiating the business or for removing an obstruction to facilitate an existing business. Expenditure incurred for running the business or working it, with a view to produce profits is in the nature of revenue expenditure. The aim and object of the expenditure determines its character and not the source and manner of its payment. The fact that the expenditure is once and for all is not conclusive. While expenditure for acquisition of a source of income would ordinarily be capital expenditure, expenditure which merely enables the profit making structure to work more efficiently would be in the nature of revenue expenditure. Expenditure incurred to fine tune trading operations to enable the management to run the business effectively, efficiently and profitably leaving the fixed assets untouched would be an expenditure of a revenue nature even though the advantage obtained may last for an indefinite period. On facts, the land belonged to the assessee and the amount paid for removal of encroachers was not for acquisition of new assets. The payment was made to facilitate its smooth functioning of the business i.e. in relation to carrying on the business in a profitable manner (Airport Authority of India 303 ITR 433 (Del) reversed; Bikaner Gypsum vs. CIT 187 ITR 39 (SC) followed)

269SS 269 T

 

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , KOLKATA

Addl. C.I.T., R-V(C) -vs.- M/s. J.A. Land & Housing Development India Limited

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
Addl. C.I.T., R-V(C) -vs.- M/s. J.A. Land & Housing Development India Limited
I.T.A No. 1116/Kol/2011 – Assessment Year : 2004-05
Addl. C.I.T., R-V(C) -vs- M/s. J.A.M. Chemical Works Limited
I.T.A Nos. 1117, 1118 & 1140/Kol/2011 – Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08
Date of Pronouncement: 02.01.2012

ORDER

PER BENCH

All the four appeals are by the Department for assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006- 07 & 2007-08 directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-III, Kolkata dated 23.06.2011. The first three appeals i.e. ITA Nos. 1116 to 1118/Kol/2011 are against deletion of penalty levied under section 271D and the last one also i.e. ITA No. 1140/Kol/2011 relates to penalty levied under section 271E. All the four appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.

2.Inspite of sufficient notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee. After hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative, we proceed to decide the appeals ex parte assessee by considering the statement of facts filed by the assessee before the 1st Appellate Authority. For the purpose of discussion, we will take ITA No.1116/Kol/2011 for assessment year 2004-05.

3.Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271D for the assessment year 2004-05 in respect of M/s. J.A. Land & Housing Dev. India Limited and also in assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07, as well as under section 271E of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08 in the case of M/s. J.A.M. Chemical Works Limited. Assessing Officer was of the view that violation of Section 269SS which defines `loan or deposit' & Section 269T defines `loan or deposit' and the common word "loan" means lending a sum of money by one party to another upon agreement to repay. Hence, Assessing Officer was of the view that though in the Companies Act "deposit" does not include share application money which is given to a Company by an applicant for allotment of shares. The fact that under the given set of facts, according to Assessing Officer, the amount so deposited with the assessee-company in the name of share application money attracts Sections 269SS & 269T. In other words, these financial transactions should be through banking channels by abiding cash transactions. Therefore, Assessing Officer was of the view that assessee has violated Section 269SS in ITA Nos. 1116 to 1118/Kol/2011 and there is violation of Section 269T in respect of ITA No.1140/Kol/2011. He, therefore, levied penalty. On appeal to the Ld. CIT(A), Ld. CIT(A) found that I.T.A.T., Kolkata Benches, "C" Bench in ITA Nos. 141 & 142/Kol/2011 have decided the issue vide order dated 19.04.2011 by following the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 417 (Mad.) that the share application money and repayment thereof will not violate Sections 269SS & 269T of the Act which attracts levy of penalty under section 271D & 271E of the Act.

4.After considering the argument of Ld. Departmental Representative who relied decision of Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Bhalotia Engineering Works (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2005] 275 ITR 399 (Jharkhand). However, we are unable to agree with the contention of the Ld. Departmental Representative as the Tribunal has already decided the issue in other group concern cited (supra) by following the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P) Ltd. (supra). Hence, we agree with the findings of Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty levied under section 271D in assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 and in assessment year 2007-08 deleted the penalty under section 271E of the Act.

5. In the result, all the four appeals of the Department are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 02.01.2011.