EC Slams CBDT For 'Insolence', CBDT Stays Defiant + Two Imp Verdicts + CBDT Reveals Latest Action Plan

[itatonl...@gmail.com]

See the footer if you would like to unsubscribe from the newsletter

Dear Subscriber,

The following important updates are available at itatonline.org:

P. Leelavathi vs. V. Shankarnarayana Rao (Supreme Court)

Benami Transactions: In considering whether a particular transaction is benami, six circumstances can be taken as a guide: (1) source from which purchase money came; (2) nature and possession of property, after purchase; (3) motive, if any, for giving transaction a benami colour; (4) position of parties and relationship, if any, between claimant and alleged benamidar; (5) custody of title deeds after sale & (6) conduct of parties in dealing with the property after sale. Mere fact that financial assistance was given is not a determinative factor (All imp judgements referred)

It is well­ settled that the burden of proving that a particular sale is benami and the apparent purchaser is not the real owner, always rests on the person asserting it to be so. This burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an inference of that fact. The essence of a benami is the intention of the party or parties concerned; and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of any part of the serious onus that rests on him; nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises, as a substitute for proof

Jagdish C. Dhabalia vs. ITO (Bombay High Court)

S. 50C Capital Gains: The assessee cannot avoid the impact of s. 50C by claiming that his s. 54EC investment is large enough to cover the deemed consideration based on stamp duty valuation. Such interpretation renders s. 50C redundant

The deeming fiction under section 50C of the Act, must be given its full effect and the Court should not allow to boggle the mind while giving full effect to such fiction. We are not opposing the proposition canvassed by the Counsel of the Assessee that deeming fiction must be applied in relation to the situation for which it is created. However, while giving full effect to the deeming fiction contained under section 50C of the Act for the purpose of computation of the capital gain under section 48, for which section 50C is specifically enacted, the automatic fallout thereof would be that the computation of the assessee’s capital gain and consequently the computation of exemption under section 54EC, shall have to be worked out on the basis of substituted deemed sale consideration of transfer of capital asset in terms of section 50C of the Act

EC Slams CBDT For ‘Insolence’, CBDT Stays Defiant. Claims Recovery Of Rs. 280 Cr Of Black Money From Politicians

The CBDT is known to be a law unto itself. No amount of strictures from the Courts has any impact on it. Now, it has come into the bad books of the Election Commission with the latter expressing “deep sense of anguish” about the “casual and trivial” approach of the CBDT. The EC has expressed its “extreme displeasure” at the “Stark violation of established protocol“

CBDT Reveals Action Plan For April To June 2019

The CBDT has released a ‘Central Action Plan’ for the first Quarter i.e. (April 2019 to June 2019) of the FY 2019-20. The Plan has set out in clear terms the ‘Key Result Areas’ that all AOs and CsIT(A) are expected to accomplish. Specific targets with regard to the completion of assessments, audit objections, recovery of arrears, disposal of appeals are set out

See Also: Digest of case laws (updated regularly) containing latest judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals 

Regards,

 

Editor,

 

itatonline.org

---------------------

Latest:

Baba Bhootnath Trade & Commerce Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

S. 68 Bogus Share Capital: The judgement in PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel 103 TM.com 48 (SC) is distinguishable on facts & does not apply to a case where the assessee has discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants by producing the PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments and the investors have shown the source of source & personally appeared before the AO in response to s. 131 summons