ITAT Explains Imp Law On Black Money Assessment In Hasan Ali Billion Dollar Tax Evasion Case
itatonl...@gmail.com
Hassan Ali Khan vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
S. 68/ 69/69A: Law relating to assessment of undisclosed income, based on disputed documents found in the premises of the assessee during search explained. Also, the law on admission of additional evidence sourced from foreign countries, onus of the assessee and onus of the revenue and law on 'telescoping' of additions also explained
The Revenue, to proceed against the assessee, must have
definite information with regard to the assessee being in possession of
monies or holding investment. This is in view of the salutary principle
of common law jurisprudence, embodied u/s.110 of the Evidence Act, i.e.,
that possession implies ownership, so that the onus of proving that the
possessor is not the owner is on the person so alleging. This principle
is also applicable to tax proceedings, incorporated in the Act (under
Chapter VI), so that the principle would be attracted to a set of
circumstances that satisfies its conditions. The expression ‘income’
under the Act, a term of wide import, is applicable to section 69A,
among others, of the Act (refer: Chuharmal vs. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250
(SC)). The assessee, claiming to have no foreign bank accounts, concedes
subsequently (on the basis of a report by UBS AG, Zurich – which has
been taken as part of the record) to have a limited banking relationship
with UBS AG, Zurich. The said report, for the reasons afore-discussed,
cannot be considered as completely reliable.
CIT vs. G.R.T. Jewellers (India) Pvt.Ltd (Madras High Court)
S. 80-IA: As CBDT's Circular No.1/ 2016 dated 15.2.2016 is in line with Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills 340 ITR 477 (Mad) the Dept should not agitate the controversy whether deduction u/s 80IA is allowable without setting off losses/unabsorbed depreciation which were set off in earlier years against other business income
On the basis of the decision in Velayudhaswamy Spinning
Mills (340 ITR 477), the Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued
Circular No.1/ 2016 dated 15.2.2016. The CBDT has clarified that an
assessee who is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA has the option to
choose the initial/first year from which it may desire the claim of
deduction for ten consecutive years, out of a slab of fifteen (or
twenty) years, as prescribed under that Sub-Section. It is clarified
that once such initial assessment year has been opted for by the
assessee, he shall be entitled to claim deduction u/s 801A for ten
consecutive years beginning from the year in respect of which he has
exercised such option subject to the fulfillment of conditions
prescribed in the section. Hence, the term ‘initial assessment year’
would mean the first year opted for by the assessee for claiming
deduction u/s 801A. However, the total number of years for claiming
deduction should not transgress the prescribed slab of fifteen or twenty
years, as the case may be and the period of claim should be availed in
continuity
Expert Analysis Of The Finance Bill 2016 By The ICAI
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), the august body
of professional Chartered Accountants, has today released a publication
titled “ICAI’s e-Flash on Finance Bill 2016”. The publication contains a
brief review of the Finance Bill by leading CAs like CA. M. Devaraja
Reddy, President, ICAI, CA. Nilesh Shivji Vikamsey, Vice- President,
ICAI, CA. Prafulla P. Chhajed, CA. Naveen N. D. Gupta and other eminent
luminaries. The impact of all the relevant provisions of the Finance
Bill 2016 have been summarized in the publication in a succinct manner.
The publication will prove useful to all professionals and taxpayers
Regards,
Editor,
---------------------
Latest: