Keeping in view that the Income-tax Act, 1961 was amended by the Finance Act, 2005 permitting an individual to deposit to the maximum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in any of the specified schemes, the concerned authorities should take steps to amend clause 3 of the PPF Scheme in terms of section 80C of the Income-tax Act.
Unlock the Calcutta High Court’s perspective on Section 68 and Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Alpine Investments. Dive into the court’s thorough examination of the matter, emphasizing the significance of documented evidence such as contract notes and bills in supporting share transactions. Despite initial suspicions, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal (ITA No.620 of 2008), asserting that transactions backed by strong documentary evidence cannot be dismissed on mere suspicion. Explore the detailed order/judgment to understand the court’s reasoning, background of the case, the search and seizure operation, and subsequent assessment proceedings. Gain valuable insights into how the court weighed conflicting statements, including the deposition of Mr. Kamlesh A. Rupani, and upheld the authenticity of share transactions. Stay informed about the court’s dismissal of any substantial question of law in this matter.
CC&CE Vs. Beekay Enterprises (CESTAT Delhi) – Penalty can be imposed within the framework of Section 11AC of the Act. Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules which deals with penalty also can be applied subject to provisions of Section 11AC. As indicated above, penalty can be imposed when non payment or short payment of duty etc. was actuated by fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder “with intent to evade payment of duty”. Even if a case of suppression of facts or contravention of any provision were made out, it is clear that suppression or contravention per se would not justify imposition of penalty unless it was made intentionally in order to evade payment of duty.
R. B. K. Securities vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) -Even prior to the amendment to s. 43(5) by the Finance Act 2005 w.e.f 1.4.2006, dealings in Futures & Options and other derivatives products cannot be treated as speculative transactions as they are special kind of transactions, not involving purchase and sale of shares and consequently the loss arising therefrom cannot be treated as a speculation loss.
Writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 245HA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under which the petitioners’ applications before the Settlement Commission are to be treated as having abated on account of failure of the Settlement Commission to pass orders under Section 245D(4) of the Act on or before 31.03.2008. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court was seized of an identical issue, the petitions were disposed of with the direction that the parties would abide by the decision of the Supreme Court and in the meanwhile the assessment proceedings would be stayed. Comed Laboratories vs. UOI (Gujarat High Court)
CIT vs. Vishnu Industrial Gases (Delhi High Court) – Where the department had not disputed that the expenditure was deductible in principle but was only disputing the year in which the deduction could be allowed HELD, castigating the department, that as the tax rates were the same in both years, the department should not fritter away its energies in raising questions as to the year of deductibility/taxability.
The agreement for sale dated 24.06.1977 was substituted by the collaboration agreement dated 06.10.1981 and the agreement to sell dated 06.10.1981. There was no interest, much less, any right transferred in the property in favour of SSPL by the assessees and hence, as observed above, there was no transfer of a right in property as contemplated under Section 2 (47) of the Act.
Manoj Aggarwal vs. DCIT – (1) Even in the case of an assessee not maintaining books of account and to whom s. 68 does not apply, addition in respect of unexplained entries in the bank book can be made; (2) Where the assessee was not provided copies of the seized documents and the delay in filing the block return was on that count, interest u/s 158BFA (1) is not leviable even though there is no exemption on that count in the statute.;
the Tribunal was right in rejecting the revenue’s application for raising the additional ground as that would have amounted to introduction of a new source of income. The decision in National Thermal Power Corporation (Supra) also does not come to the aid of the revenue in this case. A new ground can be permitted in appeal so long as the relevant facts are on record and the ground sought to be raised could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. As noted in National Thermal Power Corporation (Supra), the Tribunal has the discretion to allow or not to allow a new ground to be raised. A new ground may be allowed to be raised only when it arises from the facts which are on record. (Para 18)
A bare reading of the order shows complete non-application of mind. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, this is not the way a statutory appeal is to be disposed of. Various important questions of law were raised. Unfortunately, even they were not dealt by the first appellate authority.
