TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Upholds Tax Decision on Capital Receipts, Emphasizes Source Inquiry</h1> <h3>NEELKANTHA COMMOSALES PVT. LTD. & ANR. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD –1 (2), KOLKATA & ORS.</h3> NEELKANTHA COMMOSALES PVT. LTD. & ANR. Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD –1 (2), KOLKATA & ORS. - TMI Issues:1. Interpretation of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding assessment of share applicants.2. Justification of invoking Section 263 by the Commissioner of Income Tax.3. Reliance on precedent in M/s. Subhalakshmi Vanijya Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 263The appellant challenged the order passed under Section 263 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, questioning the treatment of share applicants. The Tribunal confirmed the Commissioner's order under Section 263 for five out of six share applicants, despite dropping proceedings after an inquiry. The appellant contended that all details were provided for the sixth share holder without adverse comments. The Court found the issue covered by the decision in M/s. Pragati Financial Management Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, where no substantial questions of law were identified.Issue 2: Justification of invoking Section 263The appellant raised concerns about the Commissioner invoking Section 263 despite examining the assessment records of investors and dropping proceedings. The Court referred to a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing the retrospective operation of Section 68 of the Act. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, citing the need for inquiries into capital receipts, even if received as share capital, to ascertain the source and genuineness.Issue 3: Reliance on PrecedentThe appellant contested the Tribunal's reliance on the lead order in M/s. Subhalakshmi Vanijya Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, arguing that the factual findings were not applicable to their case. The Court, however, dismissed the appeal based on the decision in M/s. Pragati Financial Management Pvt. Ltd., stating that no substantial questions of law were raised. The Court emphasized the need for inquiries into capital receipts, particularly in cases involving fresh share capital issued at high premiums.The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial questions of law and upholding the decision of the Tribunal. The judgment highlighted the importance of inquiries into capital receipts to determine the source and genuineness, even in cases of share capital infusion. The Court's decision aligned with previous rulings on the retrospective operation of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the need for thorough investigations to ensure compliance with tax regulations.
TaxTMI 