|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 406306 Records
-
2024 (5) TMI 366 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Levy of interest on irregular/excess Cenvat Credit availed but not utilised - invocation of extended period of limitation - levy of equal penalty - HELD THAT:- The issue of leviability of interest on irregularly availed Cenvat Credit is no more res integra in view of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka’s decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, BANGALORE VERSUS M/S BILL FORGE PVT LTD, BANGALORE [2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], wherein it was held 'Without the liability to pay duty, the liability to pay interest would not arise. The liability to pay interest would arise only when the duty is not paid on the due date. If duty is not payable, the liability to pay interest would not arise.'
The invocation of extended period on irregularly availed Cenvat Credit and excess credit is settled in view of this Tribunal’s decision in the Appellants own case [2023 (11) TMI 467 - CESTAT CHENNAI] in Final Order No. 41026/2023 dated 09.11.2023 wherein this Tribunal held that 'the appellant though have taken credit irregularly or wrongly in the books it was never utilized. So, it is not justified to attribute any motive to evade tax to the conduct of the appellant. Even irregularly availed CENVAT Credit has been reversed by the appellant on being pointed out much before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. As such, invoking extended period is not justified in this appeal.'
It is found that the appellant though have taken credit merely in the books, it was never utilised. So, it is not justified to attribute any motive to evade tax to the conduct of the appellant. Even irregularly availed Cenvat credit has been reversed by the appellant on being pointed out much before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. As such, invoking the extended period is not justified in this appeal.
Thus, interest is not leviable on the irregular availment of credit and excess credit and also that extended period of limitation is not invokable - the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 365 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Benefit of SSI exemption as per N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 denied - evidence regarding manufacture and trading activities were produced by the appellant or not - refund claim of duty paid on denial of exemption - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The order of the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) is not sustainable as the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has not considered the documents recovered during the course of investigation and merely held that the appellant has failed to produce the evidence regarding the quantum of manufacturing and trading during the impugned period. As the order of Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) is without any basis, therefore, the order passed by the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) is set aside and the order of the adjudicating authority is affirmed dropping the proceedings against the appellant which was passed after verification of the records produced by the appellant during the course of adjudication as well as thereafter. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for benefit of SSI exemption Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - the appellant is not liable to pay any duty.
Refund claim - HELD THAT:- As no demand is sustainable against the appellant and the refund claim has been filed by the appellant within 1(one) month of the order of dropping the proceedings against the appellant by the adjudicating authority, the refund claim filed by the appellant is within time and the appellant is entitled for the said refund claim.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 364 - SUPREME COURT
Right of the Bonafide purchasers - Auction sale held in favour of appellant - sale challenged on the ground that the Bank had not followed the statutory procedure prescribed under the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 - notice as required under Rules 8(6) and 8(7) had neither been issued nor served upon the borrower - HELD THAT:- In view of the concurrent finding based on the admission by the Bank that mandatory notice of 30 days was not given to the Borrower before holding the auction/sale, the setting aside of the auction/sale cannot be faulted with. The same has to be approved - Once the sale is set aside, the status of the appellants as owners would automatically revert to that of tenants. The status of possession at best could have been altered from that of an owner to that of tenants but Bank would not have any right to claim actual physical possession from the appellants nor would the appellants be under any obligation to handover physical possession to the Bank. The DRT fell in error on the said issue. Therefore, the direction issued by the DRT that the Bank will first take possession and thereafter refund the auction money with interest applicable to fixed deposits, is not a correct direction.
The entire controversy has arisen because of the Bank not following the prescribed mandatory procedure for conducting the auction sale and, therefore, the Bank must suffer and should be put to terms for unnecessarily creating litigation. As of date the dues of the Bank have been fully discharged and an additional amount of the auction money is lying with the Bank since 2009. This amount is to be returned to the appellants. In such facts and circumstances of the case, the award of interest on the auction money at the rate applicable to fixed deposits is not a correct view. The rate of interest deserves to be enhanced.
Thus, the setting aside of the auction sale is affirmed - status of the appellants as tenants shall stand restored leaving it open for the borrower as owner of the property to evict the appellants in accordance to law - entire auction/sale money lying with the Bank (R-1 & 2) shall be returned to the appellants along with compound interest @12 per cent per annum to be calculated from the date of deposit till the date of payment - Borrower Respondent nos.3 and 4 and the Bank–Respondent nos.1 and 2, would streamline their accounts and the Bank upon settlement of the same will issue a No Dues Certificate to the Borrower.
The impugned order is modified - appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 363 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods alongwith penalty - e-way bill in the present case had expired on the date when the vehicle-in-question along with the goods were intercepted - HELD THAT:- There is no reference to the ground of non-evasion of tax or deliberate delay.
Simply because there was no extension of the e-way bill, the same does not pre-supposes that there was an intention to evade tax. There is no finding either by the adjudicating officer or by the appellate authority as regards the intent of evasion of tax. There appears to be no material available to conclude evasion of Tax.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vardan Associates [2024 (2) TMI 189 - SUPREME COURT] had been pleased to observe that the appellant cannot shirk from its responsibilities to comply with the requirements in law to generate a fresh e-way bill or to seek extension thereof. But the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said judgment are in relation to a challenge as regards payment of tax and penalty and not in relation to the factum of presumption being drawn on the intention to evade tax on the non-extension of the validity of the e-way bill.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 362 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Reversal of ITC - notice has been issued without causing any verification from the supplier’s end and denying credit to the appellant - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The effect and purport of Form GSTR-2A was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd [2021 (11) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT]. It was held that Form GSTR-2A is only a facilitator for taking a confirm decision while doing such self-assessment. Non-performance or nonoperability of Form GSTR-2A or for that matter, other forms will be of no avail because the dispensation stipulated at the relevant time obliged the registered persons to submit return on the basis of such self-assessment in Form GSTR-3B manually on electronic platform.
The first respondent without resorting to any action against the fourth respondent who is the selling dealer has ignored the tax invoices produced by the appellant as well as the bank statement to substantiate that they have paid the price for the goods and services rendered as well as the tax payable there on, the action of the first respondent has to be branded as arbitrarily. Therefore, before directing the appellant to reverse the input tax credit and remit the same to the government, the first respondent ought to have taken action against the fourth respondent the selling dealer and unless and until the first respondent is able to bring out the exceptional case where there has been collusion between the appellant and the fourth respondent or where the fourth respondent is missing or the fourth respondent has closed down its business or the fourth respondent does not have any assets and such other contingencies, straight away the first respondent was not justified in directing the appellant to reverse the input tax credit availed by them.
The orders passed in the writ petition is set aside and the order passed by the first respondent namely the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge, is set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 361 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - challenge to assessment order on the ground that the Petitioner's reply dated 01.03.2023 was not duly taken into account - benefit of Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that two purchase bills that were submitted by the Petitioner as enclosures to the reply dated 05.01.2023 were referred to therein. However, there is no reference therein to the subsequent reply dated 01.03.2023. The Petitioner has approached this Court almost one year after the impugned order was issued. In these circumstances, reconsideration is warranted by putting the Petitioner on terms.
The impugned order dated 09.05.2023 is set aside on condition that the Petitioner remits 15% of the disputed tax demand within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Within the aforesaid period, the Petitioner is permitted to submit a further reply by enclosing all relevant documents - Petition is disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 360 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Exemption from Tax - Classification of goods sold - emery cloth - unclassified item or not - tarpaulins - cotton fabrics or not - covered by item-174 of First Schedule to APGST Act or not - whether the first sales of emery cloth and tarpaulins are not excisable to the tax under APGST Act? - HELD THAT:- In Feno Plast Pvt. Ltd. [1994 (12) TMI 309 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] it has been held that the words “cotton fabrics, man-made fabrics and woolen fabrics” in item-5 must therefore be read as item-59.03 of the First Schedule to the Additional Duties Act 1957, which refers to textile fabrics, impregnated cloth-covered or laminated. It is evident from the impugned judgment that it was not disputed before the Appellate Tribunal that the based material for emery material was cloth and it was described as textile fabrics in item-59.03 which was to cover of any cloth which was impregnated covered or laminated. The emery cloth even if is based with, sand, for the purpose of its use, that does not change the basic nature of it being a cloth covered in item-5 read with item-59.03 of the First Schedule to the Additional Duties Act.
With respect to tarpaulin, in Binny Limited [1997 (9) TMI 555 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] it was held that ‘tarpaulin’ falls within the meaning of the expression ‘cotton fabrics’ under item-5 of the Fourth Schedule to APGST Act.
By reason of Section 8 of APGST Act, Tarpaulin cloth was exempt from tax and the inclusion of this item in item No. 174 made no difference - The Appellate Tribunal rightly concluded that once tarpaulin falls under cotton fabrics in item-5 of the Fourth Schedule to the APGST Act, inclusion of it in item-174 of the First Schedule would make no difference.
A perusal of the Order of the learned Appellate Tribunal (at internal page-3) shows that the emery cloth was covered under item-59.03 and was exempted as the same was liable for additional duties of excise under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act 1957.
There are no illegality in the order of the Appellate Tribunal. No case is made out for interference, inasmuch as the Appellate Tribunal has neither failed to decide any question of law nor has decided the question of law erroneously.
The Tax Revision Case is dismissed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 359 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Restraint on levying GST on un-denatured Extra Neutral Alcohol supplied by the petitioner - no written explanation was submitted nor the opportunity to have the personal hearing is sought for by the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is only a show-cause notice issued by respondent No. 4 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. An option was also given to seek personal hearing. Even though, there is no explanation by the petitioner for the reasons best known to him, the petitioner has rushed to this court seeking to quash the show-cause notice on several grounds and such grounds could have been raised by the petitioner in his written explanation as to why said show-cause notice could not have been issued.
The Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VERSUS COASTAL CONTAINER TRANSPORTERS ASSOCIATION & OTHERS [2019 (2) TMI 1497 - SUPREME COURT] frowned upon practice on approaching this court of issuance of show-cause notice, without giving written explanation to enable the authority to consider his defence and to pass appropriate orders. Therefore, the petitioner has rushed to this court to challenge the show-cause notice without availing the opportunity given to him to submit his written explanation. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
The writ petition is dismissed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 358 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - non-service of SCN - notices that preceded the assessment order and the impugned order were uploaded on the GST portal, but not served on the petitioner through any other mode - cancellation of petitioner's registration - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has placed on record the document indicating the cancellation of registration with effect from 30.03.2019. Since it appears that the registration was cancelled, it cannot be expected that the petitioner should monitor the GST portal in the same manner as a registered person. However, learned Government Advocate submits, on instructions, that the show cause notice was also sent to the petitioner by e-mail. The petitioner has also placed on record the reminder dated 20.12.2023, which indicates that the petitioner accessed the portal.
The petitioner agrees to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand - it is just and appropriate that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to contest the tax demand, albeit by putting the petitioner on terms.
The impugned order is quashed subject to the petitioner remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand as agreed to within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 357 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Imposition of GST under the reverse charge mechanism on the mining lease amount paid by the petitioner to the Government (royalty) - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench Judgment in a batch of cases where the lead case is A.Venkatachalam v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has disposed off the issues with specific directions.
In view of the said judgment, this petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms. Consequently, the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - petition disposed off.
-
2024 (5) TMI 356 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rejection of refund on the ground of delay - time limitation - HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly the claim for refund should have been made by the petitioner within two years from the relevant date i.e. date of export. The export having been made during the years 2018 and 2019, the refund applications should have been filed by 2020 and 2021. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight that owing to spread of Pandemic Covid-19, first upon orders passed by the Supreme Court, in Public Interest Litigation and then in terms of the Government Notification No.13 of 2022, dated 5th July, 2022, the limitation for the duration 15.2.2020 to 28.2.2022 remained suspended.
The applications for refund were filed by the petitioner not later than 21.6.2021 (for the tax period April, 2018 to March, 2019) and not later than 24.7.2021 (for the tax period April, 2019 to June, 2019).
The matter remitted to respondent No.3 i.e. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division- (IV) to proceed to pass fresh orders on the refund applications made by the petitioner, without raising any objection as to delay - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (5) TMI 355 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - non-constitution of the Tribunal - petitioner is deprived of his statutory remedy under sub-section (8) and sub-section (9) of Section 112 of the BGST Act - HELD THAT:- The respondent State authorities have acknowledged the fact of non-constitution of the Tribunal and come out with a notification bearing Order No. 9/2019-State Tax, S.O. 399, dated 11-12-2019 for removal of difficulties, in exercise of powers under Section 172 of the BGST Act, which provides that period of limitation for the purpose of preferring an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 112 shall start only after the date on which the President, or the State President, as the case may be, of the Tribunal after its constitution under Section 109 of the BGST Act, enters office.
Petition is disposed off subject to deposit of a sum equal to 20 per cent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, if not already deposited, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under sub-section (6) of Section 107 of the BGST Act, the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under sub-section (9) of Section 112 of the BGST Act. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves.
-
2024 (5) TMI 354 - SC ORDER
Prayer for stay against demand - second round of petition - order of demand has been stayed subject to depositing 10% of the demand - In the second round of writ petition, petitioner now submits that the authorities have again committed patent illegality and perversity and acted with arbitrariness in deciding the petitioner’s application.
As decided by HC [2024 (2) TMI 1376 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] the authority having jurisdiction, has passed a brief order, keeping in view that it is only deciding the stay application and not the merits of the case. The argument of petitioner that various figures and details which were given by him have not received consideration, does not merit acceptance - We find that the authority has not restricted the relief of 20% but has granted stay subject to deposit of only 10% of the demand. The demand is based on order of assessment. The matter is in appeal. It is a tax matter and a party cannot, as a right, claim that merely because he files an appeal, the demand should be stayed.
HELD THAT:- We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment, and hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.
We, however, clarify that we have not commented on whether or not a reference should have been made to the High-Pitched Scrutiny Assessment Committee.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
-
2024 (5) TMI 353 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Addition u/s 68 - Tribunal had disbelieved the explanation furnished by the assessee as to genuineness of the gifts received by him from six individuals - HELD THAT:- Tribunal had delved deep into the matter and discovered that there was no pre-existing relationship or circumstances disclosed as may have given rise to any gift to the assessee.
Appellant is a well to do person whereas the donors were persons of modest means. In absence of any relationship shown or basis disclosed for generation of the gift, the Tribunal has disbelieved the explanation furnished by the assessee on the preponderance of probability emerging from evidence led by the parties.
Insofar as assessment of the income tax is purely a civil proceeding, the test of preponderance of probability applied by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. In the context of gift set up by the assessee, merely because the assessee may have been able to establish such gift was received through bank channel and merely because the donors may not have disputed the gift made may never have been enough to establish genuineness of the transaction.
Slight difference of test may continue to exist in cases involving gift, and deposits that are to be repaid by the recipient. Insofar as gift claimed by the petitioner amounted to change of title in the money, we do not find any defect in the course adopted by the Tribunal in disbelieving the claim on the basis of holistic consideration of the material before the Tribunal. Its findings are pure findings of fact. They do not give rise to any substantial question of law.
-
2024 (5) TMI 352 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Validity of Reassessment proceedings - reason to believe escapement of income - notice issued within four years from the end of the relevant assessment year - what tangible material which AO has done in the reasons to believe? - reason to believe under two heads, i.e., expenses towards designing fees which was capitalized and a sum that assessee paid towards concession fee to Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) - HELD THAT:- The reasons made available itself shows that it was a clear case of change of opinion. On the first item, i.e., expenses towards designing fees, which was capitalized, the A.O. states “the said contention was accepted and expenses was allowed by the department”. In Paragraph No. 2.3 it is stated “such expenses was not to be allowed as revenue expense and should have been capitalized and required to be disallowed and added back”. Therefore, it is a clear case of change of opinion.
For amount paid towards concession fee to PUDA it is stated that it is arising out of the contractual obligation between assessee company and PUDA, the same had been claimed as deduction while computing income. The said deduction was accepted and deduction was allowed to assessee - In Paragraph No. 3.1 it is stated that “ such expense was also required to be capitalized as work in progress in the books of accounts of assessee and should have been disallowed.” Therefore, this is also a clear case of change of opinion.
Moreover, during the course of assessment proceedings petitioner had also received a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act calling upon to furnish various materials under different heads including details of designing fees expense with copy of ledger and party wise details as also details regarding concession paid to PUDA. By its letter petitioner provided all the details. Therefore, these two items were also subject of consideration during the assessment proceedings.
Since the reasons to believe itself indicate as noted above that the reopening is based purely on change of opinion, as held in Aroni Commercials Limited [2014 (2) TMI 659 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] this change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (5) TMI 351 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Faceless Assessment - Validity of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B - non affording a reasonable opportunity to be heard through video conferencing - Denial of natural justice - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of Section 144B (6)(viii) of the Act indicates that where a request for personal hearing is received, the Income Tax Authority of the relevant unit shall allow a hearing through National Faceless Assessment Centre, which shall be effected exclusively through a video conferencing or video telephone. Since the request for video conferencing was made by the petitioner, it is mandatory for the respondent to accede to the same in terms of Section 144B (6)(viii) of the Act. It is well recognized that an opportunity to be heard is an important facet of natural justice. Thus, before passing an adverse order, a reasonable opportunity of hearing is required to be afforded to the petitioner.
Undisputedly, in the present case, the Act expressly provided for the concerned Unit to afford the assessee an opportunity of hearing. In this view, we find merit in Mr. Kapoor’s contention that the impugned assessment order falls foul of the principles of natural justice and the statutory requirement of affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned assessment order and remand the matter to the concerned Assessing Officer to consider afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity to be heard through video conferencing as is required in terms of Section 144B (6)(viii) of the Act.
-
2024 (5) TMI 350 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Validity of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s.144B - availability of alternate statutory remedy - conditions for exercise of jurisdiction by HC - writ petition contending that the provisions of section 69C read with section 115BBE of the Act could not be invoked and the show-cause notice did not refer to these provisions - petitioner submits that the AO has failed to give sufficient time to the petitioner while issuing notice u/s 69C - HELD THAT:- Considering that factual aspects are involved, this Court would refrain from entering into a fishing enquiry while examining a case under writ jurisdiction. We also notice that the judgment cited by the learned counsel of Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. [1960 (11) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT] is with regard to the issue where the concerned Income Tax Officer acted without jurisdiction and in these circumstances Supreme Court held that the writ Court may entertain a plea challenging such assessments done without jurisdiction.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of The State of Maharashtra and others versus Greatship (India) Limited [2022 (9) TMI 896 - SUPREME COURT] as held High Court has seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition against the assessment order. The High Court ought to have relegated the writ petitioner assessee to avail the statutory remedy of appeal and thereafter to avail other remedies provided under the statute.
Similarly, in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh and another versus M/s Commercial Engineers and Body Building Company Limited [2022 (10) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT] the issue was regarding maintainability of writ petition in relation to tax matters where statutory remedy of appeal is available and it was held that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Assessment Order denying the benefit of Input rebate is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
This Court refrains from entertaining the present writ petition. Consequently, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
It is made clear that the period for filing of appeal has expired, however, in the circumstances, the appellate authority is directed to hear the appeal on merit if it is filed within a period of 15 days subject to making pre-deposits if required in law.
-
2024 (5) TMI 349 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Validity of reassessment proceedings - non-issue of the statutory notice u/s 143(2) - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee has repeatedly applied for inspection of case records, for obtaining certified copies of order sheets, and for obtaining copies of notice u/s 143(2), if the same at all exists in the files of the assessing officer, and has even paid the requisite fees by way of challan, but the same has not been allowed by the AO. DR, could not confirm whether the statutory notice u/s 143(2) has been issued or not in absence of assessment records in his custody.
DR also expressed his inability to produce the same and he has also not brought anything on record contrary to the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR.
Thus we hold that the AO has not issued the statutory notice u/s 143(2) in response to return filed u/s 148 of the Act 1961. It is not a case that notice u/s 143(2) has been issued, and not served upon the assessee, but it is a case where the notice u/s 143(2) has never been issued at all, for assumption of jurisdiction, and the non-issue of the statutory notice u/s 143(2) is an incurable defect which cannot be cured, because the basic foundation of the assessment proceedings is bad in law. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (5) TMI 348 - ITAT DELHI
Deduction u/s 80IAB on the disallowance of depreciation on Water-use Rights (Intangibles Asset) - As per revenue payment cannot be considered to be on account of acquisition of capital asset as right to use water neither diminishes nor enhances by any means. The Government has just given a facility to the assessee to use the same and the assessee has clearly tried to claim the depreciation on the same, this cannot be allowed - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee own case we agree with the contention of the Id, counsel that such an enhancement of profit by way of disallowance of depreciation would be eligible for deduction u/s. 80IAB and this position is now set at rest by CBDT Circular No. 37/2016 dated November 2, 2016, wherein the CBDT has accepted that if disallowance leading to enhancement in the profits of eligible business, then deduction under Chapter-VIA of the Act is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance.
Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction u/s. 80IAB on the disallowance of depreciation and gave consequential relief. In view of our aforesaid direction, the issue raised on merits on allowability of depreciation on intangible assets is purely academic - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 347 - ITAT DELHI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - Non-compliance with a notice issued u/s 142(1) - first round of proceedings was deleted by the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- Vide our order of date [2024 (5) TMI 320 - ITAT DELHI] in quantum appeal, we have quashed the orders of the Ld. AO/CIT(A) passed by them in the second round of assessment proceedings. In such a scenario, the present appeal against the orders of penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act arising out of quantum assessment proceedings in the second round cannot survive. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
........
|
