Wednesday, September 29, 2021

Penny Stock : (SOP) TO HANDLE CASES OF BOGUS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN/LOSS MAINLY PENNY STOCK

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
(SOP) TO HANDLE CASES OF BOGUS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN/LOSS MAINLY PENNY STOCK

SOP to handle cases of penny stock 

In last two years, in many cases information has been received from various DIT(Investigation) wings mainly Kolkata, Delhi, Ahmedabad about bogus long term capital gain/loss commonly termed as penny stock. Many of such cases has been re-opened, many such cases are in pipe line of re-opening, in many cases information has also been supplied in ITD system itself through AIMS (Actionable Information Module System). With all these cases, detailed voluminous report is circulated along with data necessary for finalizing the assessment. It is also important to point out that numbers of such penny scrips are huge, and although till now department is able to find more than 95 such scrips, but still there are many other such scrips have been remain out of investigation. Thus, it is important for AO, not only to follow the investigation in cases where information has been received, but also to see all the cases of LTCG/LTCL from the point of view of identifying the new bogus penny stock/scrips, by following the method provided herein.

3. How this all started:   In Finance Act, 2004, Government of India has introduced the Security Transaction Tax  (STT) both at the time of purchase and sale, irrespective of profit or loss emanating from transaction, as a measure to avoid the capital gain tax. As a natural corollary to same, STCG  emanating from share transaction was revised from 30% to 10% (which was later on revised to 15% by Finance Act, 2008) and LTCG was made exempt by introduction of section 10(38). However, this wise move on part of department, later on become, a major route for tax evasion, as a syndicate of Operator, broker & scrip promoters, came together and started to use this method for providing bogus long term capital gain/loss.

4. Modus Operandi:   Modus Operandi of entire bogus LTCG/LTCL can be summarized as below:

4.1 Becoming of Scrip Operator: The most important person in this entire scam is Scrip Operator. This is person, who manages the overall scheme of the scam. An operator maintains a complex nexus of various paper/bogus entities and is also in control of some companies whose shares are listed on one or the other Stock Exchanges. He maintains a close nexus with share brokers.

A. Any person desirous of becoming Scrip Operator need to have control over various paper/bogus entities including companies/firms/ proprietorship concerns popularly known as Jama-Kharchi entities. Thus the Entry Operators, dealing in providing the bogus share capital/loan/cheque discounting are naturally the person who become SOP to handle cases of penny stock Scrip Operator, as they already has a plethora of Jama-kharchi entities with them.

B. Jama-Kharchi entities, are generally held in the name of various person either Operators own employees or any other person, who are of no means and are ready to give their name, signature, PAN card etc for a sum as small as Rs. 2000/- to 10000/-. Proprietorship concerns are generally used to deposit the cash and then transferring the same to other entities operated by same operator. These proprietorship concerns either do not file their return of income, or even when filed majority time the bank accounts were not accounted while filing their ROI. These bank accounts typically function only for very small time to avoid investigation by any authority. Normally the companies and firm involved in syndicate do file their return of income by showing literally nil or meager income, do have the audit report; however, if intelligent way is applied in analyzing the bank account of these entities & profit and loss accounts and balance sheet of these entities, it is not difficult to prove that transaction shown in bank accounts have not been taken in account while preparing the financial statements.

C. When any entry operator wishes to become scrip operator and want to start the business of giving bogus LTCG/LTCL, first and foremost task is to control all the shares of a listed scrip.  For this purpose Operator on his own or with the financial support of intermediary agent purchases a company listed on BSE and having a small capital base(company is purchased by transferring all the shares in name of themselves or in name of bogus entities/persons controlled and managed by them).

The basic criterion for purchase of a company is a small capital base with all of shareholding with the promoters and with their dummy persons. As listed companies must have some equity held by public (other than promoters) only persons of dubious reputation and unfair means can control 100% shares of company by using the dummy persons.

Many a times, entry operators also managed to list their own bogus Jama Kharchi Company in some stock exchange by bringing out IPO, which is subscribed fully by their own controlled jama-kharchi entities, for this purpose many a time, operator merges its own jamakharchis companies for creating high bogus base.

Sometime, when an aspirant scrip operator is not able to purchase a listed company or unable to get its own company listed, because of financial crunch, they get in connivance with promoters/directors of a penny stock company, a company having small capital base and 100% shares are in control of promoter either in their name or through their dummy person, who in turn allow the operator to manage each and every share of their company for some brokerage/commission and benefit of high share price for sometime, which can be used for taking the loans from Bank etc.

D. Out of above three methods of controlling the listed company namely (i) purchase/acquisition of already listed company; (ii) getting listed their own company; (iii) controlling shares of listed company in connivance with promoters; in first two cases atleast that listed company is just a paper entity devoid of any actual financial standing, which can be seen from analysis of financial statements of company having literally no/meager income or many a times even no/meager turnover; and no actual worth/assets although the balance sheet of company may look fat having huge capital and reserve surplus which is created by circular subscription of shares thus increasing the capital and reserve & surplus by equivalent increase in bogus investments in bogus jama-kharchi companies.

E. Once Operator get control over 100% shares of any listed company by any of the three ways mentioned in (D), he is ready to become a Scrip Operator.

F. The last requirement for becoming Scrip operator is having connivance with Share brokers, who allow operator to open Demat accounts and do the trades in name of bogus entities (jama-kharchi Companies) by flouting the KYC norms, escaping the back ground check as required by SEBI. Many a times brokers do the required transactions in name of bogus entities themselves.

In nutshell becoming a scrip operator person need to have control over shares of Scrip either by owning the listed company or in connivance with promoters of some listed company, control and manages huge numbers of bogus entities to launder the cash and movement of scrip, and finally to be hand in gloves with share broker who allow them to trade or trade on behalf of them through bogus entities by flouting the KYC norms and escaping the background check.

4.2 Providing the Bogus LTCG:

Entire process can be understood as under:

I. Let us suppose that there is a person “B” (Beneficiary) who is in possession of unaccounted money and who wants to bring this unaccounted money into his books. At the same time this person also desires to avoid paying any tax whatsoever when this money is brought into the books.

II. Now this person “B” approaches the Scrip Operators “O” either directly or through some sub-broker who may be another entry operator/CA/share broker, who in turn tells B to go for bogus LTCG, as it is tax free u/s 138.

III. Once deal is finalized regarding the quantum and commission, O arranges “B” to buy some specific number of shares of a specific listed company. At this time shares of that listed company are available at very low price, many a time, much below even the par value. These shares can be bought by the Beneficiary in one of the following ways :

a. B buy shares on the exchange itself in a pre-arrangement by telling specific time and numbers to ordered (so that at same time, Operator releases shares from one of the entity in which he held those shares).

b. Or Operator gives details of one of his broker, who do that transaction on behalf of B. Or

c. If needed Operator may arrange for the issue of these shares to the beneficiary through preferential allotment i.e. through private placement (this is an off-market transaction), which has one year lock-in. In such cases there is strong possibility that B purchases these shares at par value or at some premium (depending upon book value of share) which may be much high than being the price of that share on BSE/CSE etc.

d. Many a time Operator O arranges to allot B, shares in some private limited company, which in turn get merged with listed company and B get shares of listed company. In such cases by arranging the swap ratio in such a way that effective cost of share in hand of B become very low, despite the fact that shares of that listed company already are at high level.

It can be understood by following example:

Listed company trading at 250/- per share (having book value of Rs. 10/- per share)

Unlisted companies allotted shares at a premium of 240/- per share thereby the increasing the

book value of Rs. 250/- per share.

As the most adopted way to determine the swap ratio is ratio of book value; swap ratio will be 1:25 i.e. holder of one share of unlisted company will get 25 shares of listed company according to scheme of amalgamation.

Thus the cost of share in hand of B wd be Rs.10/-, despite being traded at Rs.250/-. This method is mainly useful to give entry to B, when share prices has already been jacked up.

e. Many a times B approaches O, at last hour, when he do not have time to wait for one year for getting the entry. In such cases, B is allot shares by backdating the off market transaction, which can be visible from the fact date of dematerialization of shares in account of B in very near to sell of shares, and no payment for purchase of shares is done through cheque or done at much later date.

f. In this leg of purchase of shares, most of time, B gets his money back in cash from O after deducting a security amount. So B does not have any risk involve.

IV. Thereafter, the Operator starts rigging the price of the shares through circular trading and increases the price of the shares, with the help of share brokers and bogus clients. The prices are rigged to an optimum amount over a period of time. 

The trading volume of shares during the period, in which manipulations are done to raise the market price, is extremely thin. If an analysis if this period is done, it became clear that only few of entities all bogus paper entities operated by O are involved in trading in this period.

V. In this period to avoid the eye of SEBI, many a times issuing of bonus shares, splitting of shares, frequent change in name and address of listed company is done.

VI. Once a period of 1 year (for claim of exemption on LTCG u/s 10 (38)) is over, the operator asks the beneficiary to deliver the unaccounted cash.

Once the unaccounted cash has been delivered by the beneficiary, the same is then routed by the operator to the books of various Paper/Bogus Companies which ultimately buy the shares belonging to the beneficiary at high prices.

The cash is routed to the books of bogus companies through a maze of various other paper companies so as to avoid the direct cash trail. Normally cash is deposited in proprietorship concerns, which donot file any ROI, and than layered between various paper entities.

Once the cash has been routed to the books of paper/bogus companies, which are registered as clients to the brokers, the operator instructs the Beneficiary to place a sell option for the shares belonging to the beneficiary, in a particular lot size on a particular date and time.

At the same time the operator instructs the paper/bogus companies maintained by him to buy the shares of the beneficiary on the exchange at the predetermined particular date and time. In this way the shares of the beneficiaries are bought by the paper/bogus companies and the unaccounted money of the beneficiary is routed to the books of the beneficiary as a bogus entry of LTCG.

 

4.3. BOGUS SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS

 

Sometimes, the operator also has request from some companies which foresee that they are going to have huge profits in their books of accounts. The Company wishes to reduce its taxable income by taking entry of bogus loss in its books of account so as to set-off the profit that it is going to earn. These companies are given entry of bogus Short term Capital Loss in the following manner:

 

I. Let us suppose that there is a person “C” (Beneficiary) which foresees that it is going to have huge profits in its books of accounts. The Company wishes to reduce its taxable income by taking entry of bogus loss in its books of account so as to set-off the profit that it is going to earn.

II. Now this person “B” approaches the Scrip Operators “O” either directly or through some sub-broker who may be another entry operator/CA/share broker, who in turn tells B to go for bogus STCL, to setoff its already crystallized income.

III. When approached by “B”, the operator asks the “B” to buy some specific number of shares of a specific listed company. These shares are bought by the beneficiary company at very high price on the stock exchange.

The shares which are bought by the beneficiary company are held by either the paper/bogus entities maintained by the operator or by the beneficiaries B (who wish to take an entry of bogus LTCG in their books as discussed in para 4.2).

Many a time this transaction is also done offline to save the STT and even to backdate the transaction.

IV. Thereafter, the Operator riggs the price of the shares through circular trading and decreases the price of the scrip. The prices are rigged to an optimum amount over a period of time. Again this time, volumes are thin and narrow and done only by limited entities controlled by Operator.

V. Once the price of the shares has been decreased by circular trading, the operator asks the beneficiary company to place a sell option for the shares belonging to the beneficiary in a particular lot size on a particular date and time, which is than purchased by bogus entities operated by O.

VI. The loss that is incurred by the Beneficiary company is returned back to the company in cash.

VII. In this way the beneficiary companies desirous of booking a loss in their books of account get an entry of bogus STCL which is set-off against the regular profit of the company.

4.4 Summary of modus operandi: Entire modus Operandi

can be summarized through following chart & flow diagram.

On the basis of above, the entities involved in this scheme of price manipulation of shares and entry of bogus LTCG and bogus STCL are as follows:

(i) Beneficiary B desirous of bogus LTCG

(ii) Approaches Scrip Operator O either directly or through CA/other entry operator

O controls huge number of bogus entities

O controls shares of some listed scrip

(iii) O arranges B to buy some shares of listed scrip controlled by him. investment is returned back to B in cash after keeping some margin either by telling specific date, lot, rate and time or by directing him to known borker arranging purchase of share of some pvt ltd company which latere get merged with listed company Prefrential allotment at par or book value, esp when prices are already up off market transaction back

(iv) Operator starts price rigging through its controlled bogus entities, volume remain extremely thin. Name of company, address changes splitting of shares, issue of bonus shares to avoid rise visible

(v) Cash is received from B, O deposit it in propritorship accounts, launder it through layers and made available to its controlled entities in bank account

(vi) Beneficiary C desirous of STCL approaches O, O ask him to purchase specfic scrip and number

(vii) Shares sold by B online, which in turn purchased by entities controlled by O or by beneficiary C desiorus of STCL.

(viii) B get LTCG and money in its account, laundered and tax free

(ix) Operator starts downward price rigging again by thin volume by its controlled entities.

(x) C, desirous of STCL sell its shares on being asked by O, purchased by entities controlled by O

(xi) C gets its money back in cash and have STCL in its books to setoff its already crystalised profits.

a. The operator of the Scrip known as O.

b. Directors/promoters of the listed stock (Penny Stock Companies) whose price are

manipulated, which many a time many be Operator or its associate.

c. The beneficiaries of LTCG B.

d. The beneficiaries of STCL C.

e. Bogus/paper entities maintained by the operator which are involved in price manipulation

and in providing exit to the beneficiaries from the exchange.

f. The share brokers who provide the access of stock market to these bogus/paper entities, in

lieu of high brokerage and cash commissions.

5. Action Point for A.O.:

5.1 What need to be proved in cases of LTCG/LTCL/STCL:

Based on understanding of issue in brief in above paras, mainly para 4, we can summarize the issues in hand to be proved by A.O.

Assessee purchased shares of a company/scrip which is devoid of any basic fundamentals.

Listed company does not have any business as seen from its last many P&L accounts and donot have any fixed assets or plant and machinery (most of assets are either investment or loans and advances, it is best to prove that these investments/loans/advances are also in bogus entities).

In some cases listed company may have some business and some fixed assets too, in those cases it has to be proved that same were insufficient for justifying investment by assessee and price movement, by taking comparable cases from known big group companies in that line of business.

The price movement of Scrip is Bell shaped, that means huge rise and price over a short span of time and then sharp decline in price of share. And not matching with overall movement of share market in general and movement of other scrips in same line of business.

Price movement of scrip upward and down word done mainly through thin volume and all/most entities involved in the same are related in some way and are mainly operated by some entry operator and are bogus.

Transactions of assessee in particular both purchase and sell are on other hand are effected by bogus entities controlled by some entry operator.

Brokers have failed to maintain the stringent KYC norms and background check in case of entities involved in price movement.

Statement of entities involved in price movement, entities on other hand of purchase/sale transaction of assessee, scrip operator, promoters of listed company and broker; either accepting their role in giving bogus entries or pushing them at the edge wherein it can be said that these statements are not acceptable.

Statement of assessee, either accepting the entry or pushing to edge that transactions cannot be termed to be carried out in sound financial way.

A backward probe in bank account of entities at other end of assessee’s purchase and sale to reveal either cash deposit or cash withdrawal.

Any order from SEBI/BSE/NSE regarding the scrip wherein genuiness of price movement is doubted.

Any other reference case where any other person accepted similar transactions as bogus.

It is important to mention here, that in many cases all of these points may not be proved fully, but order proving even part of these would be sufficient to make a good case.

5.2 Identifying the bogus LTCG/STCL/LTCL: First and foremost task before A.O. is to identify bogus LTCG/STCL/LTCL. The cases which have been re-opened, or are in scrutiny on the basis of information available this task is already done.

However, this task is first and foremost task before A.O. even in those cases, as this data later-on would be used for finalizing the assessment order too, and in cases where no such information is available, AO need to apply following tests to either reach at a conclusion that LTCG/LTCL/STCL is genuine or may be a case of bogus LTCG/LTCL/STCL. On the basis of discussion in para 4, following are the features of bogus LTCG/LTCL/STCL which can be seen by AO from the basic details given by assessee and small homework on internet:

A. Any person shows huge amount of LTCG/STCL/LTCL, much more than his regular income from all other sources in case of LTCG and STCL/LTCL matching with extraordinary income (income higher than normally shown by assessee in earlier years) earned yielding lower tax.

B. Most of LTCG/STCL/LTCL is resulting only from few scrips, in most cases one or two.

C. LTCG is many times the purchase value, and LTCL/STCL is many time the sale value i.e. huge fluctuation in rate of scrip over small period, much more than nation average of BSE/NSE.

D. Typical holding period shown is just more than one year in case of LTCG and LTCL and

just few months (anything less than one year) in STCL, generally matching with period of crystallization of extra ordinary income.

The above four parameters are sufficient to identify the bogus LTCG/STCL/LTCL, than the work basically proving the same remain.

5.2 Gathering the information available in public domain: In today’s word so much information is available online, if used effectively gives great insight to assessing officer and also held in making a better case.

A. Type the name of scrip in google, u would get many sites. Please go on site of BSE/CSE/NSE on which trade in specific case has took place.

B. Search for historic price movement curve and data vis-à-vis BSE/CSE/NSE for specific period. This bell shape curve in contrast with normal movement of BSE/CSE/NSE is a great indicator of bogus LTCG.

C. Download the financial results of company for year under consideration last few years.

D. Check data of day to day trade in that period. This data also have details of daily volume, which helps in proving that upward & downward movement in scrip is based on very thin volume, many a times, even single trade per day. This data can also be get from website like moneycontrol.com, and other financial trekking website.

E. If assessee has done any purchase or sale offline, what was price of the shares on that day.

F. Search in important announcement and note whether any such announcement is there in these websites.

G. Search for shareholding pattern, list of promoters, persons holding more than 1% shares, list of holding 5% shareholding etc.

H. Check for any history of blocking from trade by SEBI/BSE/NSE.

I. Most of these information in cases where information from wing is received or cases are selected on basis of ITD information or AIMS information, is already given in report in soft copy.

J. If website of listed company is available most of these information can also be get from there.

5.3 Information to be collected from assessee:

A. Copy of Demat account.

B. History of assessee in share transaction in earlier years.

C. In case of LTCL/STCL check about crystallization of extra ordinary income and try to match the same with purchase of shares resulted in LTCL/STCL.

D. Normal business of assessee, or family, firm/company in which assessee is major stock holders to trace the source of unaccounted cash in case of LTCG or use of accounted cash generated from LTCL/STCL.

E. Statement of assessee which can be taken at this stage too, by pointing out his in-efficiency for dealing in shares, and questioning his wisdom about investment in penny stocks, as companies are devoid of any financial worth.

F. Source of purported initial investment shown, whether in cash or cheque, and date of transfer of money from bank account of assessee. This leg is important in ascertaining that whether assessee has done any back dating, that is typical case when purchases are shown offline.

5.4 Information to be gathered from other sources:

A. Copy of contract notes, how the order was placed, trading account ledgers for all share transaction from broker of assessee.

B. Copy of Demat account, and documents given for KYC, Copy of contract notes, trading account ledgers for Demat account holder. For example sample letter is attached as Annexure-A to this SOP.

C. If shares has not been purchased by assessee online, and dematerialized lateron, ask information from Demat authority about documents on basis of which shares had been dematerialized. For example sample letter is attached as Annexure-B to this SOP.

D. Asking information from stock exchange BSE/NSE about all the trades done of specific scrips, for all purchase/sell including broker detail, purchase and sale party. For example sample letter is attached as Annexure-C to this SOP. These details are extremely important.

E. Checking for any punitive actions on any of such brokers by SEBI by checking SEBI website and google with their names by putting name of brokers/party and action by SEBI.

F. Check the data available in form of various reports from various investigation wings about brokers/and parties involved in trading, in this regard Kolkata investigatioin wing had already given summaried data with hyperlink to various statements.

G. Check from data available that whether the exit providers (bogus entity who purchases shares when sold by assessee) statement is available in database provided by wing.

H. Ask the details of KYC submitted and result of any background check done by broker, details of bank accounts, how the transactions has been ordered in respect of by purchase/seller parties as recd from stock exchange in reply to D from their brokers again recd in reply to D.

I. If shares had been purchased by preferential allotment of shares/or by merger, it is better to get the details of all preferential allotments, same is available at moneycontrol.com & BSE website, or Roc website, and trying analyse the trend of all such allotee, as all of these persons are beneficiary for bogus LTCG, an analysis of sale by all these parties in respect of gain from data recd in reply to D, along with all exit providers, is an excellent way to prove that entire thing is just a scam. Similarly, where shares issued to assessee of a pvt ltd company, which get merged with that listed company, it is better to get details of all persons whom shares have been issued by merged company on the same date as to the assessee, and then collate the same as in case of preferential allotment. For these purpose, information may be collected either from those parties, ROC, or even from bank statement of that party.

J. A backward probe in bank account of entities by asking information from banks at other end of assessee’s purchase and sale to reveal either cash deposit/cash withdrawal, detail regarding which is recd from brokers of those parties (as mentioned in H). For this purpose, it is better to either go personally in bank or through ITI, as many a times many layers accounts are maintained in same bank. For this purpose sample letter is attached as Annexure-D. while writing letters to bank, AO should refrain to write letters to original branch, as same wd not be in surat, writing letters to any branch, special regional branch in Surat should be suffice as all bank accounts are centralized as of now. This part is extremely important reaching to cash through layers is nearly proving cash beyond doubt.

K. Collecting information from assessing officers in respect of all entities recd as reply to D and all layers as found in

J. for this purpose, ITR may also be get from Investigation wing, as they have password where they can see return all India basis.

L. In case needed, commission may be issued to investigation wing to get the verification of parties entities and broker both involved in trade of that scrip (as recd in reply of D) if same is not already available, by giving the outline of case and investigation done so far.

M. Send the information collected so far to SEBI asking for details of any probe against scrip promoters/brokers/entities and if not done so, same may be requested to initiated in view of all the facts. In this letter, bell shaped curve, low volume and limited entities during price rise/fall, huge increase devoid of financial strength, bogus entities, not following of KYC norms and background check by brokers should be given.

5.5 Collate all the information and summoning the

Assessee:

On the basis of above information, which broadly can be collated in five category Assessee must be issued summon second time (first time done as given in 5.3) section 131 of I.T.Act, a detailed statements should be recorded including:

wherein his knowledge about share market in general,

his knowledge about scrip specific

why and how investment was made.

How brokers were instructed

How well he knows the broker, its office, its employees

How his decision to purchase shares of scrip specific is devoid of financial wisdom,

Statements of entities specific if any.

Lying all the facts before him, which proves that transaction is not normal.

If one statement as given in para 5.3 are already been done, question already covered may be left and only he be affirmed on earlier statement.

5.6 Providing detailed showcause to assessee giving all the facts as a matter of natural justice with sufficient opportunity to reply. This showcause should include all the matters given in para 5.1

5.7 Drafting of final order after considering reply of assessee and facts gathered. Which should inter alia include:

i. Financial strength of scrip & price & volume trend, and other information from BSE website.

ii. Data regarding all players involved in movement of scrip, from stock exchange.

iii. Statements of exit providers and broker.

iv. History of SEBI action from internet & SEBI.

v. Backward probe in bank accounts of exit provider to find the cash trail.

(It is also important to mention that most information related to first four points is given by investigation wing in CD format, in the folders named as Invesigation report, LTCG Database, LTCG Trade ledgers, and SEBI orders, please check and analyse the same before calling from respective authorities.)

6. It is being clarified the above guidelines are not exhaustive or exclusive; the AO may delve deeper and also investigate from any other angle which the A.O. any consider necessary and appropriate.

Annexure-A

Office of the Income Tax Officer-

Pin Ph.

F. No. ITO/Ward-3(4)/133(6)/2015-16/ Date:

To,

The Manager/Authorised Signatory

Sir,

Subject: Information u/s 133(6) of IT Act 1961 in the case of,

DP ID 12020600.

Please refer to the subject cited above.

In this regard, you are required to furnish the following details in respect of:-

1. Copy of his account opening forms (for both Demat and trading a/c) with your company

along with KYC documents.

2. Copy of his trading account ledger in your books since opening to 31/03/2014

3. Copy of his Demat account statement since opening till 31/03/2014

4. Copy of contract notes (both sale and purchase) since opening of account till 31/03/2014

You are requested to furnish the required information by 12/08/2015 (statements should be

duly certified). Soft copies of these documents/statements may be mailed to

@incometax.gov.in Please note that this information is required u/s 133(6) of Income Tax

Act 1961 and in case of non compliance penalty of ` 100/- for each day of default may be

levied u/s 272A (2) (c).

Annexure-B

Office of the Income Tax Officer-Ward

Pin, Ph.

F. No. ITO/Ward-3(4)-/133(6)/2015-16/ Date: 05/11/2015

To,

The Director

Sir,

Subject: Information u/s 133(6) of IT Act 1961 in the case of Sh.

Demat No. 000

Please refer to the subject cited above.

In this regard, you are required to furnish the following details in respect of Sh.-

5. Copy of the share certificates/documents on the strength of which 2,00,000 shares of M/s

Infra Ltd. were dematerialised and credited to his a/c on 27/01/2012.

You are requested to furnish the required information by 16/11/2015. Soft copies of these

documents/statements may be mailed to @incometax.gov.in Please note that this information

is required u/s 133(6) of Income Tax Act 1961 and in case of non compliance penalty of `

100/- for each day of default may be levied u/s 272A (2) (c).

Annexure-C

Office of the Income Tax Officer- Ph. @incometax.gov.in

F. No. ITO/Ward-3(4)-/2015-16/Date: 01/01/2016

To,

The Principal Officer/Director

Sir,

Subject: Notice u/s 133(6) of the Income Tax Act-1961- Regarding.

Kindly refer to the subject cited above.

2. In this regard it is stated that during the course of assessment proceedings in a case, this

office requires following date wiseinformation in respect of trades made in the scrip ofM/s

Kyra Landscapes Ltd. (security Id ABC, ISIN INE094M010):

2.1 List of DP/RTA/AP/Brokers who were involved in sale/purchase of this scrip from

17/06/2010 to 30/11/2011.

2.2 List of DP/RTA/AP/Brokers who were involved in sale/purchase of this scrip from

01/12/2011 to 29/10/2012.

2.3 Name, quantity bought/sold and other details (as available) of the persons who bought

and sold this scrip during 17/06/2010 to 30/11/2011.

2.4 Name, quantity bought/sold and other details (as available) of the persons who bought

and sold this scrip during 01/12/2011 to 29/10/2012.

3. Please also note that this information is required u/s 133(6) of Income Tax Act 1961 and in

case of non-compliance penalty of ` 100/- for each day of default may be levied u/s 272A (2)

(c). You are requested to send this information to the undersigned by 15th of January, 2016.

Soft copies of the statements may be mailed as well.

For any clarification, please feel free to contact the undersigned on the numbers/email

mentioned above.

Annexure-D

Office of the

No. Dated:

To

Name & Address of the Bank

SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961

Whereas your attendance is required in connection with the proceedings under the Incometax

Act, 1961 in the case of ___________________, you are hereby required personally to

attend my office at Room No.___, Aayakar Bhavan, on _______________ at _______ to give

evidence and/or to produce personally the books of account or other documents specified

hereunder and not to depart until you receive my permission to do so.

*(i) Copy of account opening form from the Bank account (to be asked only if letter is to

investor’s Bank)

(ii) Copy of the instrument (cheque, DD, RTGS slip, NEIT instruction) both sides for the

identified transaction, same has been highlighted in the Bank A/c. placed as annexure.

(iii) Name, address, Bank A/c. No., Bank details of the person from whom the transaction has

been made.

(iv) If the transferor is also having account with your Bank, please submit –

(a) copy of account opening form along with the documents submitted for the same.

(b) copy of Bank statement for entire F.Y.2012-13.

(c) narration of all entries 10 days before and 10 days after the transaction date in names and

addresses of the transferor and transferees and their Bank account details.

(v) Please also give details of all bank accounts who are linked with same Mobile No. and

email id as provided by these persons.

(vi) If any of transferor and transferee mentioned in (iv)(c) has Bank A/c. in your Bank, then

all details asked in (iv) &

(v) in respect of same and soon.

2. Without prejudice to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, if you

intentionally omit to so attend and given evidence or to produce the books of accounts and /

or documents a penalty for a sum, which shall be to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- Rupees ten

thousand) for each such default or failure shall be imposed upon you under section

272A(1)(C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Name of the Officer

This PDF file is shared on the itgoa facebook group

and

also sent to itgoa yahoo groups

You may join the itgoa facebook group and also

subscribe to itgoa yahoo groups y sending the blank

email to itgoa-subscribe@yahoogroups.com to

receive departmental issues related stuffs.

Further this SOP is appeared on itatonline . org

webpage and no author name is given there.

This is shared because it as good information for the

Assessing Officer to carry out the cases of penny

stock.

r.r.mkwana

 

Tuesday, September 28, 2021

Scrutiny notice issued to assessee under section 143(2) at address available as per PAN database was justified as change in address had not been intimated to Assessing Officer

[2019] 110 taxmann.com 332 (SC) 

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai v. I-Ven Interactive Ltd.

UDAY UMESH LALIT, MS. INDIRA BANERJEE AND M.R. SHAH, JJ. 

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8132 OF 2019† OCTOBER 18, 2019 Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - 

Assessment - Issue of notice (Service of notice) - Assessment year 2006-07 - Pursuant to return of income filed for relevant year by assessee under e-Module Scheme, scrutiny notice under section 143(2) was sent at assessee's address available as per PAN database (within prescribed timeline) - Assessee argued that it had shifted to new address and when subsequent notices were served upon assessee, such notices were barred by limitation period - However, it was found that no application was made by assessee to change address in PAN database and in PAN database old address continued - Further, assessee failed to produce alleged communication intimating Assessing Officer about new address - Whether in absence of any specific intimation to Assessing Officer with respect to change in address, Assessing Officer was justified in issuing notice at address available as per PAN database, more particularly when return had been filed under e-Module scheme - Held, yes - Whether therefore, orders passed by lower authorities holding assessment order as bad in law on ground that no notice under section 143(2) was served upon assessee within prescribed time-limit was to be quashed and set aside - Held, yes [Paras 6.1, 7, 9 and 10][In favour of revenue]

“Adventure in the nature of trade”

Characters of “Adventure in the nature of trade”: Even an isolated and single transaction may be an adventure in the nature of trade if some of essential features of trade are present in such a transaction. The character of a transaction depends on relevant facts and circumstances and there is no abstract rule, principle or test which is universal G. Venkataswamy Naidu & Co [1959] 35 ITR 594 (SC) Section 2(13), 28

Thursday, August 1, 2019

Legal error apparent on record can be corrected by the AO in exercise of his power under s 154 HC (Madras)

Legal error apparent on record can be corrected by the AO in exercise of his power under s 154, as held byDelHC in Mitsubishi Corporation v CIT & Anr — In favour of: The revenue; ITA Nos 486–488 of 2008........

Case Name : Vijay Sachdev Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 5344 & 5345/Del/2016
Date of Judgement/Order : 21/03/2018
Related Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2011-12
Courts : All ITAT (6186) ITAT Delhi (1409)
 Download Judgment/Order


Vijay Sachdev Vs JCIT (ITAT Delhi)
It is well settled law that non-consideration of decision of Jurisdictional High Court is mistake apparent from record. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, rightly contended that Ld.CIT(A) did not follow the judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court and shall have to rectify the mistake in his order in calculating the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Act. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above decisions, the order of Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and matter in issue is restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A)-18, New Delhi with direction to re-decide the appeal of the assessee in the light of the decision of Jurisdictional High Court.

FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT

Both these appeals by same assessee are directed against the different orders of Ld.CIT(A)-18, New Delhi dated 01.08.2016 for AY 2009-10 & 2011-12. Since common issues are involved in both the appeals, therefore, both appeals are disposed of through this common order. Both the parties mainly argued in AY 2009-10.

2. We have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the
material available on record. For the purpose of disposal of both the appeals, we decide the appeal for AY 2009-10 as under:-

3. The facts of the case are that the AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) on 20.10.2011 making addition of Rs.10,84,889/- [Rs.1,76,583/- + Rs.9,08,306/-] by making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii)(iii) of the Act. The assessee challenged the addition before Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition subject to certain modification/finding vide order dated 27.08.2013. The assessee filed application u/s 154 of the Act before Ld. CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) reproduced the rectification application dated 16.11.2015 in the impugned order in which the assessee explained that the computation of disallowance was made by the AO vide para 7(c) of assessment order in which disallowance attributable to Rule 8D(2)(iii) i.e. 0.5% of average investment was computed at Rs.9,08,306/- and average investment was worked out by taking the figure of investment at Rs.19.58 crores and Rs.16.74 crores. The assessee filed one letter dated 05.09.2011 showing that average value of investment comes to Rs.1.46 crores only after those shares are to be taken into account on which tax exempt income was earned. The assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 24.03.2015 in the case of ACB India Ltd. vs ACIT [2015] in ITA No.615/2014 reported in 374 ITR 0108 (Del.) in which it was held that “for computing average investment for the purpose of Rule 8D(2)(iii) only those investments will be taken into account which have yielded tax exempt income.” Accordingly, the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) could be Rs.73,085/- and accordingly the disallowance was excessive by Rs.8,35,221/-. It was submitted that it is mistake apparent on record in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 0227 (SC). It was prayed that the appellate order may be rectified accordingly.

4. CIT(A) after considering the rectification application u/s 154 of the Act and material on record and by reproducing the facts noted that the letter of the assessee was filed before Ld. CIT(A) prior to passing of the order and after verification only impugned order have been passed, therefore, present application would amount to review of the order which power Ld.CIT(A) did not possess. He has noted certain decisions that Ld.CIT(A) has no power to review the orders passed on merits. It was also noted that the issue raised by the assessee debatable and no rectification of Ld.CIT(A)’s order is legally or factually permissible. The appeal of the assessee against the rectification application u/s 154 was rejected.

5. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the investment that yield tax exempt income should be taken into consideration instead of total investment considered by Ld.CIT(A). In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. (supra) in which it was held that “where the AO, instead of adopting average value of investment of income which was not part of total income i.e. value of tax exempt investment, chose to factor in total investment itself and CIT(A) even though noticed exact value of investment which yielded taxable income, did not correct error but chose to apply his own equity; the findings of ITAT and the lower authorities were rightly set aside.” He has submitted that non-consideration of decision of Jurisdictional High Court is a mistake apparent from the record. He has submitted that Ld.CIT(A) did not follow the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. (supra) which was delivered on 24.03.2015 after passing the original appellate order passed on 25.08.2013. He has further submitted that the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court have been delivered after passing of the impugned order by Ld.CIT(A) should have been considered by Ld. CIT(A) for rectifying the impugned order because the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court is applicable retrospectively. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.(supra) in which it was held that “A judicial decision acts retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function of the Court to pronounce a ‘new rule’ but to maintain and expound the ‘old one’. In other words, Judges do not make law, they only discover or find the correct law. The law has always been the same. If a subsequent decision alters the earlier one, it (the later decision) does not make new law. It only discovers the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. To put it differently, even where an earlier decision of the Court operated for quite some time, the decision rendered later on would have retrospective effect clarifying the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood.” Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee never wanted for review of the order of Ld. CIT(A). The assessee made a request for rectification in the order of Ld.CIT(A) which is apparent from record in calculating the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Act. He has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) should decide the issue in accordance with the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the impugned order.

6. After considering the rival submissions and in the light of the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. (supra) and in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.(supra), we are of the view that there appears mistake apparent on the record of Ld.CIT(A) in calculating the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Act. It would not amount to review of the order of Ld. CIT(A). It is well settled law that non-consideration of decision of Jurisdictional High Court is mistake apparent from record. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, rightly contended that Ld.CIT(A) did not follow the judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court and shall have to rectify the mistake in his order in calculating the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Act. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above decisions, the order of Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and matter in issue is restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A)-18, New Delhi with direction to re-decide the appeal of the assessee in the light of the decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACB India Ltd. (supra). CIT(A) shall re-decide the appeal after giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No.5345/Del/2016 [A.Y.2011-12]

7.1. The issue is also same in AY 2011-12 in ITA No.5345/Del/2016. Following the reasons for decision in AY 2009-10 (supra), the order of Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and the matter in issue is restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A)-18, New Delhi with similar direction to pass an order afresh as is directed in AY 2009­10. Therefore, ITA No.5345/Del/2016 is also allowed for statistical purposes.

8. In the final result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open court on 21.03.2018.

Tags: ITAT Judgments, Section 154

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

Whether AO can travel beyond direction of Tribunal directions

 

Order passed giving appeal effect — Whether AO can travel beyond direction of Tribunal

While passing order giving appeal effect, the AO cannot travel beyond direction of the appellate authority and cannot bring to tax income which was held not taxable by such authority. Vide Lopamudra Misra v. ACIT (2011) 42(I) ITCL 265(Ori-HC)

SERVICE TAX

Cenvat credit — Input service used in providing taxable and non-taxable service — Assessee engaged in trading activity

Assessee was providing engaged in providing taxable services falling under the categories Consulting Engineer, Maintenance or Repair Service and Erection, Commissioning and Installation Services. It also supplied telecommunication equipment to one of its customers. The Commissioner held that the assessee was entitled to utilize Cenvat Credit only to the extent of 20% of the service tax payable in terms of Rule 6(3)(c) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal held that the Corporate Office registered with the Service Tax department cannot be held to have rendered taxable and exempted service for the reason that it engaged in trading activity. Hence, the full Cenvat credit was allowable ― Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCCE&ST (CESTAT-Bang) Stay Order No. 937/2010, dated 9-12-2010.


__._,_.__

Monday, June 12, 2017

ITR Volume 202 Part 6

ITR Volume 202 Part 6

AX REPORTS (ITR)--PRINT AND ONLINE EDITION

Appeal to Appellate Tribunal --Procedure--Additional evidence--Additional evidence on affidavit by assessee--Tribunal cannot consider such additional evidence--Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, r. 29-- CIT v. Canara Housing Development Company(Karn) . . . 309

Business expenditure --Agreement to sell cement factory on 25-8-1999--Actual transfer in subsequent year--Agreement stipulating that title to assets should be perfected and lease agreement renewed--Expenditure in relation to transfer of plant and machinery deductible in assessment year 2002-03--Amount spent on maintenance of corporate office--Deductible--No evidence of payment of royalty--Royalty not deductible--Income-tax Act, 1961--Karnataka Instrade Corporation Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Karn) . . . 295

Disallowance--Payments liable to deduction of tax at source--Non-resident--Commission paid to foreign agents--Non-resident agents procuring orders and following up payments with buyers for assessee--No contribution of any technical knowledge--Commission payments not for technical services--No deduction of tax at source required and disallowance not attracted--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 9(1)(vii), 40(a)(i)-- CIT v. Farida Leather Company(Mad) . . . 328

Co-operative society --Co-operative bank--Special deduction under section 80P--Special deduction not available for interest on income-tax refund--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80P--Rajkot Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Guj) . . . 337

Depreciation --Unabsorbed depreciation--Amounts written back in accounts and assessed as business income under section 41--Unabsorbed depreciation can be set off against such income--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 32, 41-- Karnataka Instrade Corporation Ltd. v. Asst. CIT(Karn) . . . 295

Interest --Deduction--Hundred per cent. export oriented undertaking--Interest accrued on temporarily surplus business funds deposited for short-term with bank--To be treated as profits of business of undertaking--Entitled to deduction--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 10B--CIT v. Hindustan Gum and Chemicals Ltd. (Cal) . . . 323

Loss --Carry forward and set off--Amounts treated as business income under section 41--Losses carried forward can be set off against such income--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 41--Karnataka Instrade Corporation Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (Karn) . . . 295

Penalty --Repayment of loan or deposit in excess of specified amount otherwise than by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft--Exemption from penalty in case of reasonable explanation for such payment--Repayments in excess of Rs. one crore--Finding that there were banking facilities available and there was no reasonable explanation for so many payments--Penalty can be levied--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 269T, 271B, 271E-- CITv. Canara Housing Development Company (Karn) . . . 309

Precedent --Binding nature of-- Yashovardhan Birla v. Deputy CIT (Bom) . . . 284

High Court--Decision binding on all authorities within State including Settlement Commission-- Yashovardhan Birla v. Deputy CIT (Bom) . . . 284

Settlement of cases --Condition precedent for application--Pendency of assessment proceedings--Assessment would be considered pending till service of assessment order upon assessee--Provisions of Chapter XIX-A can be invoked--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 245D(1)-- Yashovardhan Birla v. Deputy CIT (Bom) . . . 284

Limitation--Abatement of proceedings--Period specified in section 245D for passing order mandatory--Order passed after expiry of period--Proceedings abate--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 245D, 245HA-- RNS Infrastructure Ltd. v. ITSC (Karn) . . . 262

Transfer of case --Scope of section 127--Transfer for purposes of centralisation of cases--Reasons for transfer recorded--Objection of assessee considered--Order of transfer valid--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 127-- Dr. Monu Pattanayak v. Principal Chief CIT (Orissa) . . . 273

PRINT EDITIONITR Volume 394 : Part 4 (Issue dated : 12-6-2017)SUBJECT INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN

THIS PARTSUPREME COURT
Heads of income --Income from house property or business income--Letting of property--Whether business activity--To be determined on facts--Clause in objects of assessee not conclusive --Assessee must show that its entire income or a substantial part thereof was from letting of property which was its principal business activity--Objects clause in partnership deed to take premises on rent and to sub-let them--Assessee â€Å“deemed ownerâ€--Finding of Tribunal that assessee had not established that it was engaged in systematic or organised activity of providing service to occupiers of shops--Receipts from sub-licensees not business income but to be treated as income from house property--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 14, 22, 27(iiib), 269UA(f)-- Raj Dadarkar and Associates v. Asst. CIT . . . 592

HIGH COURTS
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal --Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals)--Powers of Tribunal--Condition precedent for appealing to Commissioner (Appeals)--Payment of taxes due--Tax not paid on date of appeal--Appeal dismissed--Subsequent payment of tax--Tribunal directing Commissioner (Appeals) to hear appeal--Justified--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 254-- Principal CIT v. Abdul Zahid M. (Karn) . . . 727

Powers of Tribunal--Tribunal can grant refund--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 254-- Kalindee Rail Nirman (Engineers) Ltd. v. CIT (Raj) . . . 684

Search and seizure--Proceedings pursuant to search conducted during pendency of appeal not brought to notice of Appellate Tribunal--Order of Appellate Tribunal without considering developments to be set aside--Matter remitted to Appellate Tribunal--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 132, 133A, 143(3), 153A-- Skyline Builders v. CIT (Ker) . . . 768

Business --Business income--Remission or cessation of trading liability--Burden on Department to prove such cessation--Finding by Tribunal that burden had not been discharged--Addition to income under section 41(1) not justified--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 41-- Principal CIT v. Ramgopal Minerals (Karn) . . . 696

Capital gains --Exemption--Investment of gains in residential house--Assessee getting more than one residential house in several blocks--All flats product of one development agreement of same piece of land--Flats located in same address--Assessee entitled to benefit under section 54F--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 54F-- CIT v. Gumanmal Jain (Mad) . . . 666

Transfer--Relinquishment of life interest in property--Not gift in absence of transfer by releaser to assessee--No acquisition of capital assets by way of gift--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 49(1)(ii)--Gift-tax Act, 1958, s. 4(1)(c), (d), (e)-- Nusli N. Wadia v. CIT (Bom) . . . 638

Cash credits --Issue of shares at premium--Three essential tests--Genuineness of transactions, identity, and capacity of investors--Tests satisfied--Amendment requiring share applicant to explain source of moneys--Not to be given retrospective effect--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 68-- CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Bom) . . . 680

Charitable purposes --Depreciation--Application of income in acquisition of capital asset--Provision barring allowance of depreciation on such asset prospective--Depreciation on assets allowable for earlier period--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 11(1), (6)-- CIT (Exemption) v. Seth Anandram Jaipuria Education Society (All) . . . 712

Expenditure incurred on payment of scholarship--Payment of scholarship for advancement of higher technical education to deserving students--Expenditure allowable--Income-tax Act, 1961-- CIT (Exemption) v. Seth Anandram Jaipuria Education Society (All) . . . 712

Hotel business --Special deduction--Condition precedent--Claim must be made in return--Assessee’s claim to deduction under section 80-IB(7)(a) denied for want of approval by prescribed authority but deduction allowed of lower sum under clause (b)--Not a case where no claim made in return to deduction under section 80-IB(7)--Assessee cannot be denied deduction--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 80A, 80-IB(7)-- Shrikar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (All) . . . 657

Special deduction--Grant of approval--Application by assessee for approval pending decision with Director General (Exemptions)--Benefit cannot be denied for inaction of prescribed authority--Denial of deduction erroneous--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 80-IB(7)(a)--Shrikar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (All) . . . 657

Income --Business income--Remission or cessation of trading liability--Conditions precedent for application of section 41--Cessation of liability and benefit to assessee--Mere inability to prove credit not sufficient--Section 41 not applicable--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 41-- CIT v. Alvares and Thomas (Karn) . . . 647

Income-tax --General Principles--Taxation only in accordance with law-- Kalindee Rail Nirman (Engineers) Ltd. v. CIT (Raj) . . . 684

Income from other sources --Cash credits--Exemption in respect of remittances received from abroad from relative--Burden of proof--Failure to establish genuineness and creditworthiness of donor--Receipts taxable as income--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 56(2), 68-- Sunil Thomas v. ITO (Ker) . . . 619

Legislative powers --Parliament--Discrimination--Provisions mandating claim to deductions with respect to profits of export oriented unit to be made in return within time stipulated under section 139(1)--Not arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable or violative of article 14--Claim to deduction under section 10B(1) made in return filed belatedly--Relief cannot be granted--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 10B(1), 80A(5), 139(1), 139(4)--Constitution of India, arts. 14, 226-- Nath Brothers Exim International Ltd. v. Union of India (Delhi) . . . 577

Offences and prosecution --Compounding of offences--No limitation period for application for compounding--Application cannot be rejected on ground that application not accompanied by compounding fee or that compounding fee not paid prior to application being considered on merits--Chief Commissioner directed to consider afresh assessee’s application for compounding of offence--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 279-- Vikram Singh v. Union of India(Delhi) . . . 746

Reassessment --Condition precedent--New material--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 147, 148--Martech Peripherals P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Mad) . . . 733

Income escaping assessment--Undisclosed investment--Addition on account of unexplained investment in building--Assessee not establishing creditworthiness of creditors but only identity of creditors--Findings of fact by Appellate Tribunal based on appraisal of evidence--No infirmity--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 69-- Dr. Chhangur Rai v. CIT (All) . . . 611

Income escaping assessment--Undisclosed investment--Assessee’s failure to file returns for years during which investments made showing corresponding income--Additions made by Assessing Officer based on District Valuation Officer’s report--Reassessment proceedings valid and proper--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 69, 147, 148-- Dr. Chhangur Rai v. CIT (All) . . . 611

Notice--Validity--Assessing Officer passing reassessment order without disposing objection raised by assessee against notice--Reassessment order not valid--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 147, 148-- Martech Peripherals P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Mad) . . . 733

Scope of--Power of Assessing Officer to consider other income not mentioned in reasons recorded--Only if income mentioned in reasons forms part of reassessed income--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 147, 148-- Martech Peripherals P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Mad) . . . 733

Recovery of tax --Writ--Locus standi--Assessment of earlier year, initiation of proceedings and conclusion in name of non-resident assessee--State Government with which non-resident entered into contract not party to earlier proceedings--Not entitled to seek rectification of order of Tribunal or file writ petition--For consistency of law parties should be continuously joined all throughout proceedings--Income-tax Act, 1961-- Chief Engineer I D and R Irrigation Department v. Asst. CIT (Raj) . . . 720

Search and seizure --Assessment in search cases--Assessment of third party--Condition precedent--Recording of satisfaction by Assessing Officer that seized material or cash belonged to third party--Search in premises of director of assessee-company and seizure of cash--Statement made by director in course of search that part of seized cash belonged to assessee--Constitutes material under section 132(4)--Satisfaction sufficient under section 153C--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 132, 132(4), 153A, 153C-- Principal CIT v. Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 753

Assessment in search cases--Assessment of third party--Document seized whether belonging to third party assessee--Person in respect of whom search conducted denying that document pertained to assessee--Finding of fact--No material to contradict brought by Department--Pre-condition not fulfilled--Provisions of section 153C not attracted--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 132, 153A, 153C-- Principal CIT v. Vinita Chaurasia (Delhi) . . . 758

Assessment of third party--Burden of proof--Source of seized document--Person in respect of whom search conducted stating that document was proposal given by broker--Duty of Department to ascertain truth of document investigating further--Additions made to assessee’s income based on conjectures--Unsustainable--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 132, 153A, 153C-- Principal CIT v. Vinita Chaurasia (Delhi) . . . 758

Settlement of cases --Abatement of proceedings--Effect--Proceedings before Assessing Officer revive on date of abatement of assessee’s application--Assessing Officer bound to pass fresh orders disposing of assessment proceedings in accordance with law--Assessing Officer not right in treating earlier assessment order as valid and serving demand notice--Earlier assessment order and proceedings for recovery of demand to be set aside--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 245HA(2)-- Chain Roop Bhansali v. Union of India (Delhi) . . . 703

Transfer of case --Transfer of cases due to re-structuring of Department--Administrative convenience for equitable distribution of work--Order communicated to assessees--Assessees given option to be heard at camp court--No prejudice caused to interest of assessees--Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 127(2)-- Swayamstuti Pattanayak v. Principal Chief CIT (Orissa) . . . 627

Words and phrases --â€Relativeâ€--Term as explained in Explanation to proviso of section 56(2) of 1961 Act-- Sunil Thomas v. ITO (Ker) . . . 619

Writ --Existence of alternative remedy--Does not exclude power of court to entertain writ petition when challenge raised on ground of absence of jurisdiction or breach of principles of natural justice--Constitution of India, art. 226--Income-tax Act, 1961, ss. 147, 148-- Martech Peripherals P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Mad) . . . 733

SECTIONWISE INDEX TO CASES REPORTED IN THIS PART

Constitution of India :Art. 14 --Legislative powers--Parliament--Discrimination--Provisions mandating claim to deductions with respect to profits of export oriented unit to be made in return within time stipulated under section 139(1)--Not arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable or violative of article 14--Claim to deduction under section 10B(1) made in return filed belatedly--Relief cannot be granted-- Nath Brothers Exim International Ltd. v. Union of India (Delhi) . . . 577

Art. 226 --Legislative powers--Parliament--Discrimination--Provisions mandating claim to deductions with respect to profits of export oriented unit to be made in return within time stipulated under section 139(1)--Not arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable or violative of article 14--Claim to deduction under section 10B(1) made in return filed belatedly--Relief cannot be granted-- Nath Brothers Exim International Ltd. v. Union of India (Delhi) . . . 577

Writ--Existence of alternative remedy--Does not exclude power of court to entertain writ petition when challenge raised on ground of absence of jurisdiction or breach of principles of natural justice-- Martech Peripherals P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Mad) . . . 733

Gift-tax Act, 1958 :S. 4(1)(c), (d), (e) --Capital gains--Transfer--Relinquishment of life interest in property--Not gift in absence of transfer by releaser to assessee--No acquisition of capital assets by way of gift-- Nusli N. Wadia v. CIT (Bom) . . . 638

Income-tax Act, 1961 :S. 10B(1) --Legislative powers--Parliament--Discrimination--Provisions mandating claim to deductions with respect to profits of export oriented unit to be made in return within time stipulated under section 139(1)--Not arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable or violative of article 14--Claim to deduction under section 10B(1) made in return filed belatedly--Relief cannot be granted-- Nath Brothers Exim International Ltd. v. Union of India (Delhi) . . . 577

S. 11(1), (6) --Charitable purposes--Depreciation--Application of income in acquisition of capital asset--Provision barring allowance of depreciation on such asset prospective--Depreciation on assets allowable for earlier period-- CIT (Exemption) v. Seth Anandram Jaipuria Education Society (All) . . . 712

S. 14 --Heads of income--Income from house property or business income--Letting of property--Whether business activity--To be determined on facts--Clause in objects of assessee not conclusive --Assessee must show that its entire income or a substantial part thereof was from letting of property which was its principal business activity--Objects clause in partnership deed to take premises on rent and to sub-let them--Assessee â€Å“deemed ownerâ€--Finding of Tribunal that assessee had not established that it was engaged in systematic or organised activity of providing service to occupiers of shops--Receipts from sub-licensees not business income but to be treated as income from house property-- Raj Dadarkar and Associates v. Asst. CIT (SC) . . . 592

S. 22 --Heads of income--Income from house property or business income--Letting of property--Whether business activity--To be determined on facts--Clause in objects of assessee not conclusive --Assessee must show that its entire income or a substantial part thereof was from letting of property which was its principal business activity--Objects clause in partnership deed to take premises on rent and to sub-let them--Assessee â€Å“deemed ownerâ€--Finding of Tribunal that assessee had not established that it was engaged in systematic or organised activity of providing service to occupiers of shops--Receipts from sub-licensees not business income but to be treated as income from house property-- Raj Dadarkar and Associates v. Asst. CIT (SC) . . . 592

S. 27(iiib) --Heads of income--Income from house property or business income--Letting of property--Whether business activity--To be determined on facts--Clause in objects of assessee not conclusive --Assessee must show that its entire income or a substantial part thereof was from letting of property which was its principal business activity--Objects clause in partnership deed to take premises on rent and to sub-let them--Assessee â€Å“deemed ownerâ€--Finding of Tribunal that assessee had not established that it was engaged in systematic or organised activity of providing service to occupiers of shops--Receipts from sub-licensees not business income but to be treated as income from house property-- Raj Dadarkar and Associates v. Asst. CIT (SC) . . . 592

S. 41 --Business--Business income--Remission or cessation of trading liability--Burden on Department to prove such cessation--Finding by Tribunal that burden had not been discharged--Addition to income under section 41(1) not justified-- Principal CIT v. Ramgopal Minerals (Karn) . . . 696

Income--Business income--Remission or cessation of trading liability--Conditions precedent for application of section 41--Cessation of liability and benefit to assessee--Mere inability to prove credit not sufficient--Section 41 not applicable-- CIT v. Alvares and Thomas(Karn) . . . 647

S. 49(1)(ii) --Capital gains--Transfer--Relinquishment of life interest in property--Not gift in absence of transfer by releaser to assessee--No acquisition of capital assets by way of gift--Nusli N. Wadia v. CIT (Bom) . . . 638

S. 54F --Capital gains--Exemption--Investment of gains in residential house--Assessee getting more than one residential house in several blocks--All flats product of one development agreement of same piece of land--Flats located in same address--Assessee entitled to benefit under section 54F-- CIT v. Gumanmal Jain (Mad) . . . 666

S. 56(2) --Income from other sources--Cash credits--Exemption in respect of remittances received from abroad from relative--Burden of proof--Failure to establish genuineness and creditworthiness of donor--Receipts taxable as income-- Sunil Thomas v. ITO (Ker) . . . 619

S. 68 --Cash credits--Issue of shares at premium--Three essential tests--Genuineness of transactions, identity, and capacity of investors--Tests satisfied--Amendment requiring share applicant to explain source of moneys--Not to be given retrospective effect-- CIT v. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Bom) . . . 680

Income from other sources--Cash credits--Exemption in respect of remittances received from abroad from relative--Burden of proof--Failure to establish genuineness and creditworthiness of donor--Receipts taxable as income-- Sunil Thomas v. ITO (Ker) . . . 619

S. 69 --Reassessment--Income escaping assessment--Undisclosed investment--Addition on account of unexplained investment in building--Assessee not establishing creditworthiness of creditors but only identity of creditors--Findings of fact by Appellate Tribunal based on appraisal of evidence--No infirmity-- Dr. Chhangur Rai v. CIT (All) . . . 611

Reassessment--Income escaping assessment--Undisclosed investment--Assessee’s failure to file returns for years during which investments made showing corresponding income--Additions made by Assessing Officer based on District Valuation Officer’s report--Reassessment proceedings valid and proper-- Dr. Chhangur Rai v. CIT(All) . . . 611

S. 80A --Hotel business--Special deduction--Condition precedent--Claim must be made in return--Assessee’s claim to deduction under section 80-IB(7)(a) denied for want of approval by prescribed authority but deduction allowed of lower sum under clause (b)--Not a case where no claim made in return to deduction under section 80-IB(7)--Assessee cannot be denied deduction-- Shrikar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (All) . . . 657

S. 80A(5) --Legislative powers--Parliament--Discrimination--Provisions mandating claim to deductions with respect to profits of export oriented unit to be made in return within time stipulated under section 139(1)--Not arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable or violative of article 14--Claim to deduction under section 10B(1) made in return filed belatedly--Relief cannot be granted-- Nath Brothers Exim International Ltd. v. Union of India (Delhi) . . . 577

S. 80-IB(7) --Hotel business--Special deduction--Condition precedent--Claim must be made in return--Assessee’s claim to deduction under section 80-IB(7)(a) denied for want of approval by prescribed authority but deduction allowed of lower sum under clause (b)--Not a case where no claim made in return to deduction under section 80-IB(7)--Assessee cannot be denied deduction-- Shrikar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (All) . . . 657

S. 80-IB(7)(a) --Hotel business--Special deduction--Grant of approval--Application by assessee for approval pending decision with Director General (Exemptions)--Benefit cannot be denied for inaction of prescribed authority--Denial of deduction erroneous-- Shrikar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (All) . . . 657

S. 127(2) --Transfer of case--Transfer of cases due to re-structuring of Department--Administrative convenience for equitable distribution of work--Order communicated to assessees--Assessees given option to be heard at camp court--No prejudice caused to interest of assessees-- Swayamstuti Pattanayak v. Principal Chief CIT (Orissa) . . . 627

S. 132 --Appeal to Appellate Tribunal--Search and seizure--Proceedings pursuant to search conducted during pendency of appeal not brought to notice of Appellate Tribunal--Order of Appellate Tribunal without considering developments to be set aside--Matter remitted to Appellate Tribunal-- Skyline Builders v. CIT (Ker) . . . 768

Search and seizure--Assessment in search cases--Assessment of third party--Condition precedent--Recording of satisfaction by Assessing Officer that seized material or cash belonged to third party--Search in premises of director of assessee-company and seizure of cash--Statement made by director in course of search that part of seized cash belonged to assessee--Constitutes material under section 132(4)--Satisfaction sufficient under section 153C-- Principal CIT v. Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 753

Search and seizure--Assessment in search cases--Assessment of third party--Document seized whether belonging to third party assessee--Person in respect of whom search conducted denying that document pertained to assessee--Finding of fact--No material to contradict brought by Department--Pre-condition not fulfilled--Provisions of section 153C not attracted-- Principal CIT v. Vinita Chaurasia (Delhi) . . . 758

Search and seizure--Assessment of third party--Burden of proof--Source of seized document--Person in respect of whom search conducted stating that document was proposal given by broker--Duty of Department to ascertain truth of document investigating further--Additions made to assessee’s income based on conjectures--Unsustainable--Principal CIT v. Vinita Chaurasia (Delhi) . . . 758

S. 132(4) --Search and seizure--Assessment in search cases--Assessment of third party--Condition precedent--Recording of satisfaction by Assessing Officer that seized material or cash belonged to third party--Search in premises of director of assessee-company and seizure of cash--Statement made by director in course of search that part of seized cash belonged to assessee--Constitutes material under section 132(4)--Satisfaction sufficient under section 153C-- Principal CIT v. Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 753

S. 133A --Appeal to Appellate Tribunal--Search and seizure--Proceedings pursuant to search conducted during pendency of appeal not brought to notice of Appellate Tribunal--Order of Appellate Tribunal without considering developments to be set aside--Matter remitted to Appellate Tribunal-- Skyline Builders v. CIT (Ker) . . . 768

S. 139(1) --Legislative powers--Parliament--Discrimination--Provisions mandating claim to deductions with respect to profits of export oriented unit to be made in return within time stipulated under section 139(1)--Not arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable or violative of article 14--Claim to deduction under section 10B(1) made in return filed belatedly--Relief cannot be granted-- Nath Brothers Exim International Ltd. v. Union of India (Delhi) . . . 577

S. 139(4) --Legislative powers--Parliament--Discrimination--Provisions mandating claim to deductions with respect to profits of export oriented unit to be made in return within time stipulated under section 139(1)--Not arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable or violative of article 14--Claim to deduction under section 10B(1) made in return filed belatedly--Relief cannot be granted-- Nath Brothers Exim International Ltd. v. Union of India (Delhi) . . . 577

S. 143(3) --Appeal to Appellate Tribunal--Search and seizure--Proceedings pursuant to search conducted during pendency of appeal not brought to notice of Appellate Tribunal--Order of Appellate Tribunal without considering developments to be set aside--Matter remitted to Appellate Tribunal-- Skyline Builders v. CIT (Ker) . . . 768

S. 147 --Reassessment--Condition precedent--New material-- Martech Peripherals P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Mad) . . . 733

Reassessment--Income escaping assessment--Undisclosed investment--Assessee’s failure to file returns for years during which investments made showing corresponding income--Additions made by Assessing Officer based on District Valuation Officer’s report--Reassessment proceedings valid and proper-- Dr. Chhangur Rai v. CIT(All) . . . 611

Reassessment--Notice--Validity--Assessing Officer passing reassessment order without disposing objection raised by assessee against notice--Reassessment order not valid--Martech Peripherals P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Mad) . . . 733

Reassessment--Scope of--Power of Assessing Officer to consider other income not mentioned in reasons recorded--Only if income mentioned in reasons forms part of reassessed income-- Martech Peripherals P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Mad) . . . 733

Writ--Existence of alternative remedy--Does not exclude power of court to entertain writ petition when challenge raised on ground of absence of jurisdiction or breach of principles of natural justice-- Martech Peripherals P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Mad) . . . 733

S. 148 --Reassessment--Condition precedent--New material-- Martech Peripherals P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Mad) . . . 733

Reassessment--Income escaping assessment--Undisclosed investment--Assessee’s failure to file returns for years during which investments made showing corresponding income--Additions made by Assessing Officer based on District Valuation Officer’s report--Reassessment proceedings valid and proper-- Dr. Chhangur Rai v. CIT(All) . . . 611

Reassessment--Notice--Validity--Assessing Officer passing reassessment order without disposing objection raised by assessee against notice--Reassessment order not valid--Martech Peripherals P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Mad) . . . 733

Reassessment--Scope of--Power of Assessing Officer to consider other income not mentioned in reasons recorded--Only if income mentioned in reasons forms part of reassessed income-- Martech Peripherals P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Mad) . . . 733

Writ--Existence of alternative remedy--Does not exclude power of court to entertain writ petition when challenge raised on ground of absence of jurisdiction or breach of principles of natural justice-- Martech Peripherals P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT (Mad) . . . 733

S. 153A --Appeal to Appellate Tribunal--Search and seizure--Proceedings pursuant to search conducted during pendency of appeal not brought to notice of Appellate Tribunal--Order of Appellate Tribunal without considering developments to be set aside--Matter remitted to Appellate Tribunal-- Skyline Builders v. CIT (Ker) . . . 768

Search and seizure--Assessment in search cases--Assessment of third party--Condition precedent--Recording of satisfaction by Assessing Officer that seized material or cash belonged to third party--Search in premises of director of assessee-company and seizure of cash--Statement made by director in course of search that part of seized cash belonged to assessee--Constitutes material under section 132(4)--Satisfaction sufficient under section 153C-- Principal CIT v. Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 753

Search and seizure--Assessment in search cases--Assessment of third party--Document seized whether belonging to third party assessee--Person in respect of whom search conducted denying that document pertained to assessee--Finding of fact--No material to contradict brought by Department--Pre-condition not fulfilled--Provisions of section 153C not attracted-- Principal CIT v. Vinita Chaurasia (Delhi) . . . 758

Search and seizure--Assessment of third party--Burden of proof--Source of seized document--Person in respect of whom search conducted stating that document was proposal given by broker--Duty of Department to ascertain truth of document investigating further--Additions made to assessee’s income based on conjectures--Unsustainable--Principal CIT v. Vinita Chaurasia (Delhi) . . . 758

S. 153C --Search and seizure--Assessment in search cases--Assessment of third party--Condition precedent--Recording of satisfaction by Assessing Officer that seized material or cash belonged to third party--Search in premises of director of assessee-company and seizure of cash--Statement made by director in course of search that part of seized cash belonged to assessee--Constitutes material under section 132(4)--Satisfaction sufficient under section 153C-- Principal CIT v. Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi) . . . 753

Search and seizure--Assessment in search cases--Assessment of third party--Document seized whether belonging to third party assessee--Person in respect of whom search conducted denying that document pertained to assessee--Finding of fact--No material to contradict brought by Department--Pre-condition not fulfilled--Provisions of section 153C not attracted-- Principal CIT v. Vinita Chaurasia (Delhi) . . . 758

Search and seizure--Assessment of third party--Burden of proof--Source of seized document--Person in respect of whom search conducted stating that document was proposal given by broker--Duty of Department to ascertain truth of document investigating further--Additions made to assessee’s income based on conjectures--Unsustainable--Principal CIT v. Vinita Chaurasia (Delhi) . . . 758

S. 245HA(2) --Settlement of cases--Abatement of proceedings--Effect--Proceedings before Assessing Officer revive on date of abatement of assessee’s application--Assessing Officer bound to pass fresh orders disposing of assessment proceedings in accordance with law--Assessing Officer not right in treating earlier assessment order as valid and serving demand notice--Earlier assessment order and proceedings for recovery of demand to be set aside-- Chain Roop Bhansali v. Union of India (Delhi) . . . 703

S. 254 --Appeal to Appellate Tribunal--Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals)--Powers of Tribunal--Condition precedent for appeal to Commissioner (Appeals)--Payment of taxes due--Tax not paid on date of appeal--Appeal dismissed--Subsequent payment of tax--Tribunal directing Commissioner (Appeals) to hear appeal--Justified-- Principal CIT v. Abdul Zahid M.(Karn) . . . 727

Appeal to Appellate Tribunal--Powers of Tribunal--Tribunal can grant refund-- Kalindee Rail Nirman (Engineers) Ltd. v. CIT (Raj) . . . 684

S. 269UA(f) --Heads of income--Income from house property or business income--Letting of property--Whether business activity--To be determined on facts--Clause in objects of assessee not conclusive --Assessee must show that its entire income or a substantial part thereof was from letting of property which was its principal business activity--Objects clause in partnership deed to take premises on rent and to sub-let them--Assessee â€Å“deemed ownerâ€--Finding of Tribunal that assessee had not established that it was engaged in systematic or organised activity of providing service to occupiers of shops--Receipts from sub-licensees not business income but to be treated as income from house property-- Raj Dadarkar and Associates v. Asst. CIT (SC) . . . 592

S. 279 --Offences and prosecution--Compounding of offences--No limitation period for application for compounding--Application cannot be rejected on ground that application not accompanied by compounding fee or that compounding fee not paid prior to application being considered on merits--Chief Commissioner directed to consider afresh assessee’s application for compounding of offence-- Vikram Singh v. Union of India (Delhi) . . . 746