Shahrukh Khan wins Income Tax Litigation on Legal Point

Sudha Sharma appointed as Member of CBDT Rupee hits a high of 48.73 against Dollar Excise Officers caught burning official files in midight in Aligarh after Income Tax raids on Ponty Chadha SC cancels 122 licences issued by A Raja during his tenure as Telecom Minister Laxman Das is Officiating Chairman of CBDT Tariff Value for import of gold is 556 & for silver 1067 & for Brass Scrap 4078 & for poppy seeds 2205-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 10 Fused Silica is classifiable under Tariff Item 32074000-Customs Circular No.3 Additional Commisssioner of Income Tax HA Siddiqui sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for accepting bribe of Rs 1 Lakh by CBI Court in Delhi Exchange Rate for imported goods is Rs 50.20 Per US Dollar & Rs 66 per EURO-Exchange Rate for export goods is Rs 49.40 per US Dollar & Rs 64.40 per EURO HC upholds levy of service tax on booking of flats-The explanation which was inserted by the Finance Act of 2010 clearly brings within the fold of taxable service a construction service provided by the builder to a buyer where there is an intended sale between the parties whether before, during or after construction Authority for Advance Ruling rules super concentrates shall be classified as products of the chemical industry under heading 3824 90 90 of Customs Tariff Anti dumping duty imposed on import of Morpholine from China European Union & USA Anti dumping duty imposed on import of Geogrid/Geostrips/ Geostraps made of polyester or Glass fiber in all its forms from Refund of Anti-Dumping Duty (Paid in Excess of Actual Margin of Dumping) Rules, 2012 notified-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.5 Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Amendment Rules, 2012-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.6 Safeguard duty at the rate of 10% ad valorem notified on import of Phthalic anhydride, falling under tariff item 2917 35 00-Customs SG Notification No.1 Customs duty on import of Gold, Silver, Cut & Polished Diamonds hiked Customs duty to be charged at the rate of 2 per cent of Tariff Value on gold and 6 per cent of Tariff Value on silver Tariff Value for import of gold & silver notified-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.3 Anti-dumping duty on imports ofSilk fabrics 20-100 gms per metre, falling under heading 5007 originating in, or exported from, China-CustomsTariff Notification No. 2 Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of Nylon Filament Yarn, falling under Chapter 54 ,originating in, or exported from, China, Chinese Taipei, Malaysia, Thailand and Korea RP-Customs TariffNotification No.3 Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of Phosphoric Acid of allgrades and all concentrations (excluding Agriculture/Fertilizer Grade) ,falling under tariff item 28092010, originating in, or exported from, Israel and Taiwan-Customs Tariff Notification No.4 Anti-dumping duty on imports of Cellophane Transparent Film , falling under Chapter 39 , originating in, or exported from, China-Customs TariffNotification No.5 Anti-dumping duty onimports of Saccharin, falling under Chapters 29, 30, 33 and 38 ,originating in, or exported from, China-Customs Tariff Notification No.7 Special Bench of ITAT rules the appellant is not entitled to set off carry forward business loss against the long term capital gain arising on sale of land used for the purpose business ITAT rules Long Term and Short Term gains / losses on sale of equity shares under Portfolio Management Scheme is business income and not Capital Gains HC rules the opinion of the AO may have been legally erroneous but this cannot be a ground for initiation of re-assessment proceedings Anti-dumping duty on ‘Caustic Soda’, originating in, or exported from, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Japan, USA & France-Customs Tariff Notification No.1 Cost Accountants can issue Certificates for the purpose of refund of 4% CVD-Customs Circular No.1 Customs duty on import from ASEAN nations lowered- Customs Tariff Notification No.127 deeper tariff cut on import from Malaysia notified- Customs Tariff Notification No.128 deeper tariff cuts on import from Korea notified- Customs Tariff Notification No.123 deeper tariff cuts on import from Srilanka & Pakistan under SAFTA notified- Customs Tariff Notification No.125 Schedule of Rates for Service Tax Refund to Exporters notified in supersession of Notification No.17/2009-Service Tax Notification No. 52 Customs duty on import of several products from specified countries lowered-Customs Tariff Notification No.113 Anti-dumping duty on ‘Sodium Hydrosulphite (SHS)’, falling under headings 2831 and 2832 , originating in, or exported from, China PR- Customs Tariff Notification No.111 CBEC specifies documents required for Registration of ServiceTax Customs duty on import of 532 Products from Singapore lowered-many products exempted from duty-Customs Tariff Notification No. 106 Government allows Rebate of excise duty on export of goods to Nepal under ARE-1 Procedure w.e.f. 1st March 2012-Central Excise Non-Tariff Notification No.24

JUDGMENTS

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

exchange rate

SERVICE TAX

INCOME TAX

VAT

FINANCE ACTS

FINANCE BILLS

EOU STPI

SEZ

DGFT

RBI

NTT

RESOURCES

Email | Print

Shahrukh Khan wins Income Tax Litigation on Legal Point

shahrukh Khan AIT News Network

MUMBAI. Shahrukh Khan has proved to be a Superstar even in Income Tax litigation by winning Appeal in Tribunal on legal ground that the block assessment order was passed beyond the time permitted by law and the same was time barred and hence illegal and invalid.

F A C T S:
A search had taken place at Shahrukh Khan’s residence cum office No. 702-A, 7^th Floor, Amrit Bldg., Cater Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai on 18.12.1996 and continued till 19.12.1996. The search had taken place in lieu of the warrant of authorization dated 17.12.1996. Certain papers, files etc. were seized. Locker keys were also seized and Panchanama was drawn on 19.12.1996. It was mentioned in the Panchanama that the search has been temporarily concluded.

Two warrants of authorization were issued on 23.12.1996 with regard to each of the said lockers for which the keys were seized on 19.12.1996. Locker of Hongkong Bank was searched on 23.12.1996 which was found to be empty and Panchanama was drawn on that date which mention that the search was finally concluded. Locker of Grindlays Bank was also searched on 23.12.1996 where jewellery worth Rs. 6.99 lakhs was found inventory was prepared and Valuation was done. Panchanama was drawn on 23.12.1996. It was mentioned in the said Panchanama that the search is finally concluded.

Two warrants of authorization were issued on 23.12.1996 with regard to each of the said lockers for which the keys were seized on 19.12.1996. Locker of Hongkong Bank was searched on 23.12.1996 which was found to be empty and Panchanama was drawn on that date which mention that the search was finally concluded. Locker of Grindlays Bank was also searched on 23.12.1996 where jewellery worth Rs. 6.99 lakhs was found inventory was prepared and Valuation was done. Panchanama was drawn on 23.12.1996. It was mentioned in the said Panchanama that the search is finally concluded.

The jewellery found at locker was brought to said residence on 23.12.1996 and was placed in an Alimirah in the bedroom and P.O. was clamped. A Panchanama was prepared to the said effect on 23.12.1996 at residence. A statement of Shahrukh u/s. 132(4) was recorded on 23.12.1996 and question was asked to the assessee to explain the source of jewellery. In reply to the said question Shahrukh had stated that most of the jewellery was gift from wife’s parents and some jewellery have been purchased after 31.03.1996 and sought some time to produce the purchase bill. There was no mention of said statement in the Panchanama prepared at residence on 23.12.1996.

On 10.01.1997 another statement of Shahrukh was recorded u/s. 131 and at that time no question was asked with regard to the jewellery.

On 30.01.1997 the search party again visited the residence-cum-office of Shahrukh and lifted the P.O. and released jewellery. Statement of Shahrukh was recorded, in which he stated that he has produced the purchase bills of jewellery of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the balance jewellery is gifts from friends and relatives and fans on various occasions and some of the jewellery belongs to his late mother. However, he requested the search party not to seize the jewellery and voluntarily offered to Rs. 4 lakhs as income on account of jewellery over and above his earlier offer of Rs. 20 lakhs. Panchanama was drawn on 30^th January 1997 and it was mentioned that the search was finally concluded.

The assessment has been completed vide order dated 23.01.1998. The main plea of Shahrukh was that the time limitation for the purpose of section 158BE starts form 23.12.1996 and the block assessment order could have been passed on or before 31.12.1997 as per the provisions of section 158BE(1)(a) i.e. within one year from the end of the month in which last of the authorization of search u/s. 132 was executed. Accordingly the block assessment order passed on 23.01.1998 was barred by the time limitation. Whereas the plea of the Revenue is that the time limitation will start from 30.01.1997 and the assessment order passed on 23.01.1998 is within the time provided u/s. 158BE(1)(a).

R U L I N G :

The copies of the authorizations warrants clearly shows that the authorization dated 17.12.1996 was in respect of the residence-cum-office of the assessee and it was used on 18.12.1996, 23.12.1996 and on 30.01.1997. The authorizations dated 23.12.1996 were in respect of two lockers and same could not have been used to enter the residence of the assessee on 23.12.1996 as such it is clear that the PO was clamped at the residence on 23.12.1996 in execution of authorization warrant on 17.12.1996. The copy of the authorizations dated 23.12.1996 clearly shows that the same were used only once for the purpose of searching the lockers on 23.12.1996.

The section 158BE clearly states that the limitation will start from the end of the month in which last of the authorizations was executed. It pre-supposes that there can be a situation where more than one authorizations for search u/s. 132 are issued and the execution of the last of the such authorizations is to be considered as the starting point for the purpose of limitation. It clearly refers to the last authorizations in case where more than one authorizations are issued. As such it cannot be held that all the authorizations are issued. As such it cannot be held that all the authorizations issued should be treated as a common kitty and any one of the authorization which is executed at the end should be considered for the purpose of limitation.

The last of the authorizations issued in the case of the assessee dated 23.12.1996 was executed on that day itself. The assessment was required to be concluded with one year from the end of the month in which last of the authorizations were executed. Meaning thereby that as per the provision of section 158BE the assessment was required to be completed by 31^st December 1997. Hence the assessment order passed u/s. 158BC on 23.01.1998 was barred by time limitation and same is quashed.

( Click here for full text of ruling AIT-2006-101-ITAT )