|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1720 Records
-
2019 (6) TMI 1643 - ITAT DELHI
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained purchases - HELD THAT:- As two of the parties have denied making any sales to the assessee. No entries of such sales have been recorded in the books of account. Two parties have admitted to have made sales to the assessee and filed reply under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, supported by bill and Affidavit, on which, no adverse inference have been drawn by the A.O. All the payments of purchases have been made through banking channel which have not been doubted by the authorities below.
The assessee also filed the quantitative details of opening stock, purchase goods, manufacture, sales made and closing stock which also supports the explanation of assessee that he has made genuine purchases which have been sold later on. These facts clearly show that there was no basis for the authorities below to consider it to be a case of bogus purchases. It is also an admitted fact that statement of Shri Rajendra Jain was not provided to assessee nor statement was subjected to cross-examination on behalf of the assessee. He has also retracted from his earlier statement. Therefore, there was no basis to make any addition against the assessee. The issue is, therefore, covered by the Order of ITAT, Delhi SMCBench in the case of same assessee for the A.Y. 2011-2012 [2019 (4) TMI 1112 - ITAT DELHI]. In view of the above, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and delete the entire addition. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1642 - ITAT MUMBAI
Nature of expenses - expenses of contribution for scheme deficiencies - revenue or capital expenditure - AO disallowed the claim of expenses / loss only on the basis that the assessee has treated it as to have goodwill among the investors and therefore, he treated this expense as capital in nature - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- As noted that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [1980 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], L.H Sugar Factory & Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. [1980 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. [1964 (4) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT], and Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd[1979 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] as held that payment of statutory dues and taxes imposed as a pre-condition to commence or for carrying on of a business ; it may comprehend many other acts incidental to the carrying on of a business. However wide the meaning of the expression may be, its limits are implicit in it. The purpose shall be for the purpose of the business, that is to say, the expenditure incurred shall be for the carrying on of the business and the assessee shall incur it in his capacity as a person carrying on the business.
Hon’ble Karnataka High court in the case of CIT v. Canara Bank Ltd. [2014 (1) TMI 1586 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] allowed the claim of the assessee. Hence, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee after discussion in detail as reproduced above. We, accordingly, affirmed the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided against revenue.
Disallowance of elated expenses holding the same as penal in nature and also not incurred for the purpose of the business - HELD THAT:- Money went out of scheme to the investors by excess allowance or otherwise by excess withdrawals by the investors carried out by concerned scheme. The above narrated expenses/ deductions in no way can be said that these are in the nature of penal expenses as described in explanation 1 to section 37(1) of the Act. We have gone through the agreement entered into between LIC Mutual Fund Trust Co. Ltd. and Jeevan Bima Sahyog Asst. Management Company Ltd..
We noted that the expenditure claimed by assessee on account of fraudulent encashment of warrant, on account of incorrect accounting made for security, shortfall in systematic withdrawal of plan, double interest booked and difference in unit creation has already been disallowed by CIT(A) and for this assessee is not in appeal. We noted that for the balance amount of ₹ 91,15,800/- there is no application of explanation 1 to section 37(1) - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1641 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 263 - petitioner purchased its own shares as buy-back under Section 77 A of the Companies Act - Whether shares purchased under Section 77 A of the Companies Act cannot be regarded as dividend and the impugned notice has been issued in a hurried manner without providing sufficient time to the petitioner to send a reply and hence, it is liable to be set-aside? - HELD THAT:- In view of the elaborate orders passed [2019 (7) TMI 136 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] touching all the issues, this Writ Petition stands dismissed, directing the petitioner to file necessary objections to the show-cause notice within a period of 15 days and on such receipt, the same shall be considered by meeting out each and every objections raised, on merits and in accordance with law.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1639 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI BENCH
Seeking approval of Resolution Plan - HELD THAT:- All the reliefs asked for in Section 6 of the resolution plan by the RA, are granted.
The resolution plan submitted by the RA seems to be in place and fit to be admitted. Henceforth the moratorium order shall cease to have effect. The resolution professional shall further act upon as prescribed on approval of the resolution plan to forward the records to the concerned authorities and to intimate the closure of the insolvency proceedings.
Application allowed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1638 - SC ORDER
Clearance of outstanding dues of the secured creditor - HELD THAT:- The liberty to the appellant to move an application within two weeks from today before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on the terms as requested to this Court. In case, such application is filed, the NCLT may consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.
The Civil Appeals are accordingly disposed of.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1637 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Exemption u/s 11 - charitable activity u/s 2(15) - claim of accumulation under section 11(2) - denial of claim as activity of the assessee involves advancement of any other abject of general public utility and its receipts exceeds the mandatory limit as specified under proviso to section 2(15) - THAT:- As decided in own case [2018 (10) TMI 1915 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] there is no change in the facts and circumstances in the impugned case in comparison to the previous assessment years and the Revenue in earlier year has accepted the same. Therefore in our considered view the principles of consistency should be applied. In this regard we find principles laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [1991 (11) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] are directly attracted to the instant case wherein it was observed that in the absence of any material change in the facts, the Revenue should not take a different view in the other year. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1636 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Summoning of petitioner through arrest warrants - Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The arrest warrants issued against the petitioner is converted as bail able warrants.
Petition disposed off.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1635 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - sufficiency of own funds - HELD THAT:- In this year the assessee earned dividend income much higher than the earlier year which is why taking into consideration the entire gamut of the matter, AO applied the provision of Section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act. However, we find from records that the interest to the tune needs to be deleted in view of the particular fact that the own fund of the assessee exceeds investment. Therefore, a presumption can be drawn that such investment was made out of the own fund of the assessee.
Disallowance of administrative expenditure - Under the specific circumstances when the AO has failed to establish the nexus that investment was made out on interest bearing funds disallowance towards administrative expenditure is not permissible. We find the fact of the case before us and that of the judgment cited upon is similarly situated and in the absence of any changed facts of the case, we do not find any reason to deviate from the same in confirming the estimated disallowance to the tune of ₹ 1,50,000/- as made by the Learned CIT(A) which is not permissible and therefore, bad in law. Thus the same is liable to be quashed. Hence, we delete such addition made by the Learned CIT(A). The assessee’s appeal is thus allowed.
Disallowance of interest @12% - Interest free advances to three parties on which no interest was charged - HELD THAT:- As relying on assessee's own [2018 (12) TMI 1679 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] case we find no infirmity in the order impugned passed by the first appellate authority so far as to warrant interference. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Consequently, the appeals fails and accordingly dismissed.
We find no infirmity in the order impugned passed by the first appellate authority so far as to warrant interference. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Consequently, the appeals fails and accordingly dismissed.
Deduction u/s 80IA on a much higher amount than to earlier years - right of amalgamating company to claim deduction - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2018 (12) TMI 1679 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] relevant legal provision has already been elaborated by the Ld. CIT(A) in his findings that as per the provisions of section 80IA(12) when any undertaking of an Indian Company which is entitled to deduction under this section is transferred before the expiry of the period specified in this section to another Indian Company then as per clause (b) the provision of this section shall apply to the amalgamated Company as they would have applied to the amalgamating Company if the amalgamation had not taken place and the provisions of subsection (12) would only apply if the amalgamating Company was eligible for claiming deduction u/s 80IA. It is demonstrated from the above facts and circumstances that the assessing officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee on presumption basis that addition was old plant and machinery without bringing on record evidence to substantiate that specified machinery was purchased by Shanti processor Ltd and the assessing officer has also failed to disproved the material fact that similar claim was allowed to the assessee in the assessment year 2009-10 on fulfilling of all the conditions. - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1634 - ITAT BANGALORE
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - application of turnover filter - HELD THAT:- As in this case, the Tribunal has approved the applicability of turnover filter of 1/10th or 10 times of the turnover of the tested party. In holding so, the Tribunal has followed the binding judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Acusis Software India P. Ltd. [2018 (8) TMI 1885 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT- thus we hold that the two comparables CG-VAK Software Exports Limited and Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited should be excluded by applying the turnover filter because the turnover of CG-VAK Software Exports Limited is less than 1/10th of the assessee company’s turnover and the turnover of Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited is more than 10 times of assessee company’s turnover.
The turnover of Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited is said to be ₹ 3,609.32 Crores and hence, it is more than 10 times of the turnover of assessee company of ₹ 234.38 Crores. By applying the turnover filter, we direct the TPO/AO to exclude these two comparables from the final list. In view of this, we feel that other arguments in respect of exclusion of these two comparables are not required to be discussed and decided.
As assessee is engaged in the provision of software development services to its AEs, thus companies functinally disimilar with that of assessee need to deselected from final list.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1633 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance u/s 14A - assessee suo moto made disallowance - HELD THAT:- The issue is now covered, in favour of the assessee, by a coordinate bench decision in the case of DCIT vs. Greenland Infracon Pvt Ltd [2018 (11) TMI 1415 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] section 14A of the Act can be triggered only if assessee seeks to square off expenditure against the income which does not form part of total income under the Act and Section 14A of the Act cannot be invoked where no exempt income was earned in the relevant assessment years.No potency in the argument laid on behalf of the Revenue that the CIT(A) allegedly committed error in granting total relief in the matter of disallowance u/s 14A. In our considered view, the action of the CIT(A) in granting relief under s.14A on account suo moto disallowance by the assessee and thereby granting relief higher than claimed in the return of income cannot be faulted in law. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1632 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - compliance with the terms of settlement or not - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- Mr. Kapil Arora and rest of the Allottees are allowed to withdraw the application under Section 7 of the 'I&B Code' with liberty to pray for revival and continuation of 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process' against the 'Corporate Debtor' - 'Morpheus Developers Private Limited' if the Terms of Settlement' is violated; in case the Terms of Settlement' is not complied with in its letter and spirit and it will also be open to file a petition for contempt proceedings and for action in accordance with law against the Directors of the 'Corporate Debtor'.
Fee of the 'Interim Resolution Process/Resolution Process and cost of resolution process - HELD THAT:- The matter is remitted to the Adjudicating Authority, Principal Bench, New Delhi to determine the claim and fix the fee payable to the 'Interim Resolution Professional' and present 'Resolution Professional' and resolution cost payable to one or other IRP/RP. On such determination, the amount is to be paid by the 'Corporate Debtor' - 'Morpheus Developers Private Limited' within the period as may be prescribed by the Adjudicating Authority.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1631 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD
Seeking directions to approve the resolution plan - section 30(6) and 31 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 R/w Regulations 39(4) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons), R/w Rule 11 of NCLT rules, 2016 - HELD THAT:-
-
2019 (6) TMI 1630 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - appeal was instituted beyond period of 90 days, beyond the period of maximum extendable period by the Appellate Authority - HELD THAT:- There is absolutely no explanation for inordinate delay in the institution of the petition. The averment in the petition is that there is no delay or laches in instituting this petition. Therefore, the petitioner, far from acknowledging the delay and explaining the same, does not even admit that there is any delay or laches. This is an additional ground for dismissing this petition.
Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1629 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Exemption u/s 11 - registration u/s 12AA - proof of charitable activity u/s 2(15) - denial of registration by the Ld. CIT is that in the absence of Balance sheet, Income Expenditure, Receipts & Payments accounts, thus difficult to verify genuineness and nature of activities - assessee trust was further asked to provide a rationale why registration should be granted in the absence of any apparent charitable activity being pursued - HELD THAT:- In our view, the trust that at the time of filing application for registration was un-doubtly at nascent stage and has not carried out any activity therefore, one can not expect from the trust to do activity of the charity immediately.
As at the time of registration u/s 12AA of the Act, the Ld. CIT(E) is required to see the objects of the trust or institutions and genuineness of its activities, however, if we come to the instant case, then it is not disputed that the trust was formed and created only on 22.01.2015 and immediately within one year of its creation, the application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act has been filed on 30.11.2015 which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 26/05/2016 so it is not in controversy that the assessee trust at the time of applying the registration was at nascent stage, therefore, could not carry out any activity.
Opinion at the time of disposal of application, the Ld. CIT(E) in order to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activities of the trust or institution can call for such documents or information from the trust or institution as he thinks necessary and also empowered to make such enquiry as he may deem fit necessary in this behalf , secondly that after satisfying himself about the object of the trust or institution and the genuineness of the activities, he shall pass the order in writing either to register or refusing to register the trust or institutions. In the instant case no activity was carried out therefore question of genuineness did not arise.
Finally in our considered opinion as at the time of applying the registration the assessee trust has not carried out many activities and even otherwise it cannot be expected so at the nascent stage, therefore, the assessee trust is entitled to get registration u/s 12AA of the Act from the date of application, hence, we direct the Ld. CIT(E) to grant the registration u/s 12A of the Act to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1628 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Exemption u/s 11 - Grant of registration u/s 12A denial - CIT(E) rejected the application mainly on the ground that neither any reply has been submitted to the query raised nor any request been received for adjournment till the date of passing of the order - HELD THAT:- Ld. CIT(E) nowhere in the order has neither pointed out any defect in aims and objects of the society nor doubted the genuineness of the activity specificallyy.
No hesitation to hold that the Applicant Society is carrying out its activity according to its aims and objects specified in the MOA. As it is settled law that before deciding application u/s 12AA of the Act, the Ld. CIT(E) is to evaluate two requirements (i) objects of the Applicant Society (ii) genuineness of its activity which in the instant case are not in controversy, hence the Ld. CIT(E) is directed to grant the registration u/s 12AA of the Act to the Applicant Society - we clarify that the Ld. CIT(E) shall be at liberty to put condition if any found appropriate as per law and shall also be at liberty to withdraw/cancel the registration in the event of any discrepancy(s) and/or breach of any provisions of the Act in future. Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1627 - ITAT PUNE
TP Adjustment - Comparable selection - HELD THAT:- We observe that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by assessee’s own case for assessment year 2009-10 [2019 (4) TMI 1286 - ITAT PUNE] wherein it has been categorically held by the Co-ordinate Pune Bench that BEML Limited being a Government Company even without going into the merits of the functional test of BEML Limited, it cannot be considered as a comparable to that with the assessee since Government Companies operate entirely in different controlled environment, customers are different, raw material suppliers are different, profit margins are different and would not operate in a free competitive environment.
Capacity adjustment by recommending a method without justifying the reliability of the method - HELD THAT:- As relying on M/S PETRO ARALDITE P. LTD. [2013 (8) TMI 403 - ITAT MUMBAI] we find this issue should be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer to follow the precedent in existence on this issue and make the adjustment in any after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Non-availability of authentic bifurcation of the transactions between the AE and Non-AE - inappropriate computation of transfer pricing adjustment on the total turnover of the assessee from manufacturing operations instead of adjustments, if any only on the value of international transactions pertaining to manufacturing operations - HELD THAT:- Transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted to the value of the international transactions. Since this is a case of import transactions, we agree with the assessee and direct that the transfer pricing adjustments should be restricted to the value of the international transactions. Hence, this objection of the assessee is accepted.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1626 - ITAT KOLKATA
Nature of receipt - Credit to capital reserve - Addition holding that profit arising on account of forfeiture of shares is capital receipt in nature - CIT(A) deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- DR could not bring to our notice any case laws to controvert the findings of the ld. CIT(A). In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition .That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. C.I T.(A) deleting the aforesaid additions.
Interest on unsecured loan and interest on Others – TDS and Sales Tax - HELD THAT:- Interest expense on the delayed payment of service tax is allowable deduction -Assessing Officer has erred in making disallowance of interest paid being Interest on Unsecured Loans and interest on Others – TDS and Sales Tax - Hence, ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition - Appeal of the Revenue are dismissed.
Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- The said issue of the Revenue is squarely covered by the judgment of HOLCIM INDIA P. LTD. [2014 (9) TMI 434 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that in the absence of any tax free income, the corresponding expenditure could not be worked out for making disallowance u/s. 14A - Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chemnivest vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-Vl, [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received during the relevant previous year. Therefore, in view of above, the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D is not sustainable.
Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) - assessee’s failure to deposit employees’ contribution towards statutory ESI and PF within the due date - HELD THAT:- The issue involved is no longer reintegra. If the assessee pays PF and ESI contribution within the time of filing return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, it would be sufficient compliance and no disallowance is attracted.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1625 - ITAT CHENNAI
Applicability of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) - amount was released as grant and latter it was treated as loan in terms of G.Odepreciation on the assets acquired out of the amount granted by the Government of Tamilnadu, Disaster Management and Mitigation Department - CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee by treating the impugned receipt in question as interest free loan and allowing the depreciation claim against assets acquired from the said receipt despite the Tamil Nadu Government G.O. dated 18.07.2005 classifying it as Gran - HELD THAT:- The amount was received from Government of Tamil Nadu originally in the form of grant and subsequently it was classified as interest free loan vide G.O. (Ms) No.22, dated 03.02.2016. Therefore, this amount cannot be treated as grant attracting Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is based on the proper appreciation of evidence on record. We do not find any perversity in findings of the ld. CIT(A) - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1624 - ITAT KOLKATA
Addition u/s 68 - Bogus LTCG - HELD THAT:- Addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of long term capital gain - HELD THAT:- As relying on Sanjib Kumar Patwari (HUF) [2019 (5) TMI 1670 - ITAT KOLKATA] wherein as considered the issue relating to LTCG in the scrip / share of M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. and adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee therefore we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of long term capital gain. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1623 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS — NCR BENCH(INCOME-TAX)
Advance ruling application - Income taxability in India - taxability of payments to be made by Perfetti India for the costs to be allocated by the applicant under the service agreement - DTAA between India and the USA - Applicant had relied on the provisions of article 12(5)(b) of the DTAA to canvass that in the absence of a "make available" condition, the payments would not partake of the character of "fees for technical services" and further in the absence of any permanent establishment (PE) (in terms of article 5 of the DTAA) of the applicant, such payments would not be taxable in India - HELD THAT:- As services rendered under the service agreement when read with TTKLA, fall within the purview of article 12(5)(a) of the DTAC as such services "are ancillary and subsidiary to the application or enjoyment of the right, property or information for which a payment described in paragraph 4 of this article is received" by the applicant.
Whether the services also "make available" technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes or consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design, which enables the persons acquiring services to apply the technology contained therein? - The exercise to segregate the services which "make available" the technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how, processes etc. and enable the recipient to apply the same without reference to the service provider and the advisory services which fail to fulfil this yardstick, will only be an academic exercise. As already mentioned earlier the service charge received by the applicant is taxable under article 12(5)(a) of the DTAC between India and the Netherlands and it is not necessary that the clause of article 12(5)(b) should also be simultaneously satisfied. The exercise to identify the services which satisfy the 'make available' clause would have been relevant, if the article 12(5)(a) would not have been found to be applicable.
The questions posed to us for a ruling are answered as under :
Question No. 1 : The payment to be made by Perfetti India for the cost to be allocated by the applicant is taxable under article 12(5)(a) of the DTAC between India and the Netherlands. Though some of the services are also taxable article 12(5)(b) of the DTAC, such services are not segregated as they are already taxable under article 12(5)(a).
Question No. 2 : As the answer to question No.1 is in affirmative, the payment made by Perfetti India would be chargeable to tax in India.
Question No. 3 : Perfetti India is liable to withhold taxes under section 195 of the Act on the payments to be made towards the costs to be allocated by the applicant.
Question No. 4 : As the applicant is liable to tax in India, it is required to file a tax return under the provisions of the Act and the transfer pricing provisions of sections 92 to 92F would be applicable in respect of the payment to be made by Perfetti India.
........
|
