See the footer if you would like to unsubscribe from the newsletter
Dear Subscriber,
Dear Subscriber,
CIT vs. Sadiq Sheikh (Bombay High Court) (Goa Bench)
S. 68 Bogus Cash Credits: The Revenue can examine the source of the source. Merely pointing out to a source and the source admitting that it has made the payments is not sufficient to discharge the burden placed on the assessees by s. 68. Otherwise, it would be sufficient for assessees to simply persuade some credit-less person to own up having made such huge payments and thereby evade payment of tax on the specious plea that the Revenue can always recover the tax from such credit-less source. The explanation has to be plausible and backed by reliable evidence. 'Fantastic or unacceptable' explanations are not acceptable (All imp verdicts on s. 68 referred) If the ITAT were to have considered the aforesaid circumstances, which, according to us, the ITAT was duty-bound to, we are quite sure that the ITAT would not have, nevertheless, found the so-called explanation of the assessees acceptable or in compliance with the provisions of Section 68 of the said Act. Rather we are inclined to believe, that the ITAT too, would have found the so-called explanation of the assessees too fantastic to deserve any acceptance. In Mussadilal Ram Bharose 1987(2) SCC 39, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned against acceptance of any 'fantastic' or 'unacceptable' explanations in tax matters
Kamal Galani vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 69/69A HSBC Bank Black Money: The AO has to prove that the money belongs to the assessee. If the assessee files necessary evidence to prove that the unexplained money does not belong to him, the onus shifts to the revenue to prove that the unexplained money in fact belongs to the assessee. Unless the AO proves that unexplained money belongs to the person, he cannot make any addition in the hands of the assessee. The fact that the assessee is a joint holder of the bank account does not mean that the money belongs to him if the evidence suggests that the money belongs to the other holder It is the case of the Ld. AO that the account with HSBC bank, Geneva is opened by resident Indian and black money earned by such resident Indian has been stashed abroad without paying taxes/disclosing income in India. But, fact remains that in the instant case, the account was opened in 1998, when the assessee himself and Mr. Dipak Galani permanently resided outside India for 30 years and had no intention to come to India at that time. Further, both of them have no source of income in India, during the course of their residence abroad. Therefore, we are of the view that entire motive as presented by the Ld. AO defines all logic of opening of a secret bank account in Geneva, by NRI to stash unaccounted income taxable in India fails. The ld. AO mechanically disregarding all explanations furnished by the assessee as to the ownership of the account along with the corroborative materials is contrary to the settled position of law, because, once assessee has provided a reasonable explanation about ownership, then the onus was on the Ld. AO to establish that account belongs to the assessee
Admission And Retraction In Income-Tax Survey And Search And Relevancy Of Electronic Evidence
The All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP) (West Zone) organized a virtual National tax conference where one of the subjects for discussion was,"Admission and Retraction in Income-tax survey and search, and relevancy of electronic evidence" The session was chaired by Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior Advocate, and the paper was presented by Advocate Narayan Jain, Kolkata. For the benefit of the tax professionals a brief summary is prepared by Advocate Shashi Bekal Judgements uploaded by esteemed readers:
CIT v. Jalaram Jagruti Development Pvt. Ltd (Bom) (HC)
In the course of the search, a notebook and loose paper were found and seized. The assessee did not offer the unaccounted cash receipts as found recorded in the seized documents. The Assessee followed the project completion method of accounting and offered it to tax in the year of completion of project. It was held, the receipts in question cannot be brought to tax in A.Y. 2003-04. These receipts have already been accounted for in the books of account can be taxed only in the year in which project is complete and income from the project is offered for taxThe Supreme Industries Limited Vs The CBIC & Another
Whether cart can be put after the horse- how without dealing with the facts, the operative part of the order can be recorded? Bombay High court comes down heavily on Customs officer and sets aside the order in a landmark decision pronounced on 27/10/2020 Articles published by esteemed readers:
International Taxation - Analysis of Basic Concepts and Case Laws with Comments
Advocate Arjun Gupta has written an Article on International Taxation which explains the basic concepts with the aid of case-laws along with comments on such case laws which might interest readers.
TCS at the time of Receipt or Invoicing: Confusion & Clarifications
CA Naresh Jakhotia has argued that a law implemented without considering the administrative convenience to the taxpayers can never be a good law & is against the basic concept of providing ease of business. He has pointed out that one such provision is with regard to recently introduced provision on Tax Collection at Source (TCS) which is effective from 01/10/2020WHY BANKS FAIL IN INDIA
Advocate T S Ramani has opined that the FRDI BILL should include the creditors also, in running/ managing the banks. He has suggested that a Legal Provision has to be created in the FRDI BILL by legislature/ government/ regulator to give the creditors the option of representation in the management of these banking businesses in a quid pro quo for bail-ins as an equitable first principle. The government should be open for THE CREDITORS' REPRESENTATIVES on THE BOARD of a normally functioning healthy bank so that the creditors can have a say in running prudently the bank Latest:
Natural Justice And Writ Petitions (Video + Transcript Of Webinar)
The All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP Western zone) had organized a Webinar on June 14, 2020 on the subject of "Principles of Natural justice as applicable to Tax proceedings and Writs in taxation". The speaker was Advocate Mr. Manish J.Shah, Ahmedabad and Chairman was Dr K. Shivaram, Senior Advocate, Mumbai. For the benefit of the readers, a brief summary of the proceedings has been prepared by Advocate Shashi Bekal__._,_.___
Posted by: "editor@itatonline.org" <itatonline.org@gmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (1) |
.
__,_._,___
0 comments:
Post a Comment