|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 467 Records
-
2025 (1) TMI 47
Denial of input tax credit in terms of the provisions contained in Section 16 (2) (c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax/State Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017 - HELD THAT:- One opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to prove its claim in terms of the Circulars referred to in paragraph No.101 of the judgment of this Court in M. Trade Links [2024 (6) TMI 288 - KERALA HIGH COURT] before the competent authority.
This writ petition will stand allowed by setting aside Exts. P2 and P3 orders to the extent it denies input tax credit on account of the provisions contained in Section 16 (2) (c) of the CGST/SGST Acts and directing that the claim of the petitioner shall be considered in terms of the Circulars referred to in paragraph No. 101 of the judgment of this Court in M. Trade Links after affording an opportunity of hearing to an authorised representative of the petitioner.
-
2025 (1) TMI 46
Inaction of the municipal authorities in YSR Kadapa District who had granted permission to respondent No.6 to occupy the Annie Besant Municipal High School ground for a period of 45 days for holding the Dussehra and Navaratri exhibition in not recovering the amount due as per the agreed terms - HELD THAT:- It is stated that considering the history of respondent No.6 inasmuch as he was not a defaulter in the past of any of the municipal dues, on his request, relaxation for payment of the balance amount had been granted by the authorities in his favour.
This is not a fit case where the proceedings should be permitted to continue.
Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 45
Deductions made from the petitioner's 2nd and 3rd running bills under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and the Assam Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (SGST Act) - validity of Circular No. 3/2017-GST - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that the present writ petition has become infructuous, inasmuch as, there was no infirmity with the application of the CGST and SGST by the State respondents, while making deductions against the 2nd and 3rd running bills of the petitioner. It is needless to add that if the petitioner is of the view that he is entitled to some concession as per law, there is no bar for the petitioner to submit a representation to that effect.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.
-
2025 (1) TMI 44
Challenge to vires of Section 16(4) of the GST Act, 2017 - ITC refund claimed by the petitioner for a period from January, 2020 to March, 2020 rejected on the ground that the petitioner availed the Input Tax Credit (ITC) wrongly in contravention to Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017, and the applicable Arunachal Pradesh GST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Considering the amendment brought in Section 16 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by inserting Sub-Section (5), the impugned order in original dated 15.02.2022 is hereby set aside without adjudicating the said orders on merit.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 43
Rejection of application for rectification of error apparent on the face of record under Section 161 of the GST Act - mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A and between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has filed an application for rectification under Section 161 of the Act on the premise, that the impugned order dated 25.04.2024, insofar as it levies tax on the very same discrepancies between GSTR-7 and GSTR-3B, which had been dropped on two earlier occasions, suffers from error apparent on the face of record. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 18.07.2024 on the premise that the circumstances do not warrant exercise of power under Section 161 of the Act, inasmuch as the petitioner had not replied to the notices issued before the assessment was made.
Conclusion - The principles of procedural fairness and the necessity of providing parties with an opportunity to respond to allegations or discrepancies before final orders are made. The petitioner may treat the impugned order as a show cause notice and submit its objections within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material.
Petition closed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 42
Disallowance of expenses - finding of the High Court in the impugned judgment is that the appellant assessee, except for producing resolution adopted by the Board, did not produce any material in support of the claim for expenses - HELD THAT:- We concur with the view taken by the High Court that apart from resolution of the Board, no other material was placed on record in support of the claim for deduction. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the impugned judgment. However, we make it clear that the view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment will remain confined to the Assessment Years 1990-1991, 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 - Assessee appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 41
Broken period interest paid on purchase of securities - As decided by HC [2023 (6) TMI 1461 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT] respondent had purchased securities to hold them as stock-in-trade. Therefore, interest paid on such securities would be an allowable deduction - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in this Special Leave Petition is squarely covered by a decision of this Court dated 16th October, 2024 rendered in “Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. [2024 (10) TMI 875 - SUPREME COURT]
In view of the aforesaid decision, the Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 40
Maintainability of writ petition against order of Assessment in violation of the principles of natural justice - invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction vested in this under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - availability of alternative remedy - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order of Assessment is in violation of the principles of natural justice. We have enquired into this aspect of the matter and as noted above, the notices had been duly served upon Sh. Sahil Mahajan, the legal heir of Late Sneh Gupta, who was well represented before the Assessing Authority.
The instant case does not fall under any of the exceptions enumerated hereinabove. The order impugned is passed by the Assessing Authority having jurisdiction in the matter and that there is no apparent violation of the principles of natural justice. Needless to say that no provision of Income Tax Act is under challenge in this petition.
We are not inclined to entertain this petition and instead relegate the petitioner to the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority, in case, he wishes to challenge the impugned order of assessment.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal provided under the Income Tax Act.
-
2025 (1) TMI 39
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r.8D - expenses incurred to the extent relatable to the earned income of taxable income - HELD THAT:- As decided in M/s. Quest Global Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd.,[2021 (3) TMI 434 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] since no exempt income has accrued to the assessee therefore, the provisions of Section 14A of the Act do not apply to the fact situation of the case.
Those cases where shares are held as 'stock-in-trade', it becomes a business activity of the assessee to the deal in those shares as a business proposition. Whether dividend is earned or not becomes immaterial. In fact, it would be a quirk of fate that when the investee company declared dividend, those shares are held by the assessee, though the assessee has to ultimately trade those shares by selling them to earn profits.
The situation here is therefore, different from the case like Maxopp Investment Ltd. where the assessee would continue to hold those shares as it wants to retain control over the investee company. In that case, whenever dividend is declared by the investee company that would necessarily be earned by the assessee and the assessee alone.
Therefore, even that the time of investing into those shares, the assessee knows that it may generate dividend income as well and as and when such dividend income is generated that would be earned by the assessee. In contrast, where the shares are held as stock-in-trade, this may not be necessarily a situation. The main purpose is to liquidate those shares whenever the share price goes upon order to earn profits - Decided against revenue.
-
2025 (1) TMI 38
Maintainability of writ petition against reassessment proceedings - HELD THAT:- The change of opinion is to be verified from the records regarding the assessment which has been made on earlier occasion is proper one, or the subsequent assessment is the proper one. If such a situation is there, then the same is to be deliberated upon by the authority by going through the documents available on record and on consideration of the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, meaning thereby, the same pertains to the adjudication of fact.
Also while considering the change in opinion, the order must not be non-speaking and based upon non-speaking order, there cannot be any consideration of the fact that the assessment is based upon the change in opinion.
This Court in order to consider the said aspect has gone through the order impugned and found therefrom that the order is not cryptic, rather it is a detailed order basis upon the documents which were assessed/scrutinized by the Assessing Officer and basis upon the same, the assessment order was made, but when subsequently it was found that the disclosure of the documents needs to be statement in the income tax which is also based upon the material document which led the revenue to issue notice.
It is, thus, evident from the impugned order that the said order is not a cryptic one, rather it is a detailed order on consideration of the rival submissions of the parties based upon the appreciation of the documents.
This Court is of the view that in such a factual aspect where the assessment order is being disputed by the petitioner on fact, then it will not be proper for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a situation where the effective alternative remedy of appeal is available under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
However, it is left open for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy as provided under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
-
2025 (1) TMI 37
Condonation of delay filling appeal - delay of 38 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before CIT(A) - eligible reasons for delay - HELD THAT:- Before us the assessee has submitted a detailed affidavit of the chartered accountant of the assessee wherein the complete delay has been explained. It is not the case that the chartered accountant did not act. It is the case where the chartered accountant has under mistaken belief filed a reply on the online portal. The explanation of the chartered accountant clearly shows that that an email was received from the accountant of the company on 13 November 2022 along with the screenshot of the adjustment made.
As the chartered accountant was busy for filing income tax returns for his overseas clients which prevented him from paying close attention to the nature of the proceedings and he presumed that the company received a communication under the Act, and he filed a response on 13 November 2022 itself on the online portal.
It is not the case of the carelessness on behalf of the assessee or its chartered accountant, but merely a case of misapprehension.
It is also correct that in form number 35 the assessee has given a cryptic answer for delay. The explanation of the assessee is that there is no space available for filing a condonation of delay at that particular column.
In this case the delay is small and not inordinate. Nobody gains by filing an appeal late when substantial demand has arisen against him.
We find that the CIT–A has taken a very pedantic approach in considering the delay caused in filing of the appeal which is nominal. We find that now because of the affidavit of the chartered accountant filed before us, there is a sufficient cause of delay in filing of appeal by 38 days.
-
2025 (1) TMI 36
Disallowance of prior period expenses, contributions to pension and gratuity funds, and the treatment of upfront lease premium assessee's income is exempt u/s 11 and 12 - HELD THAT:- Additions and disallowances made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) are not sustainable, particularly in view of the settled position regarding the assessee’s entitlement to exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act. Consequently, all additions, disallowances, and consequential levies are deleted, and the grounds of appeals in AYs 2006-07 & 2007-08 filed by the assessee are allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 35
Revision u/s 263 - valuation of shares and the premium charged - PCIT noted that AO while passing the scrutiny assessment order rejected the valuation report submitted by the merchant banker and adopted fair value of shares at face value of Rs. 10 per share thereby brought excess share premium to tax - HELD THAT:- While making an assessment, the assessing officer has varied role to play. He is the investigator, prosecutor as well as adjudicator. As an adjudicator he is an arbitrator between the revenue and the taxpayer and he has to be fair to both. His duty to act fairly requires that when he enquires into a substantial matter like the present one, he must record a finding on the relevant issue giving, his reasons therefore, which is absent in the present facts of the case.
Merely by passing an order sheet entry, the Ld.AO accepted the value as per the valuation report to be the market value and admits that no further enquiry has been made. It is settled law that while making assessment on assessee, the ITO acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. An assessment order is amenable to appeal by the assessee and to revision by the Commissioner under Sections 263 and 264. Therefore, a reasoned order on a substantial issue is legally necessary.
In the present facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld.AO, therefore becomes erroneous because enquiry has not been made regarding the share valuation report based on which the assessee determined the share value at premium. It was incumbent on him to verify by making necessary enquiries, more so when in the immediately preceeding assessment year in assessee’s own case the valuation report by the merchant banker was rejected on similar facts. Thus, we hold that provision of section 263 has been rightly invoked - Decided against assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 34
Addition of income having received amount in cash - reliance on notings and the paper so seized in search - evidentiary value of documents so found - HELD THAT:- It has not been established that the assessee actually received the said sum and further when the entire balance, as mentioned in the impugned document, is duly accounted for in the books of accounts of the assessee and the entire sales having been duly recorded in the books of accounts and no sales have been found to have been made outside the books and no other evidence having been established to prove the assessee having actually received the said sum.
It is excruciating to note that the addition of ₹ 2.5 crore has been made without any charging provision so as to fall within the four squares of law. Nothing can be more painful to note that such order has passed the muster of section 153 of the Act.
AO grossly erred in making the addition and which was wrongly confirmed by the learned CIT(A). Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 33
Undisclosed income - difference of income voluntarily offered for taxation during the survey and income declared in the return of income - HELD THAT:- Assessee has been able to demonstrate its case for declaring the income below than the disclosure made by one of the directors in the survey operation u/s 133A of the Act and even otherwise the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case referred to above pertaining to AY 2017-18 [2023 (1) TMI 757 - ITAT MUMBAI] has analyzed the identical facts and circumstances as involved in the instant case and by giving clear cut finding approved the Assessee’s income as declared, hence, the addition under consideration is liable to be deleted, thus the same is deleted. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 32
Revision u/s 263 - AO failed to make sufficient inquiries and without application of mind passed reassessment order relating to the “income from house property” accrued to the appellant company on unsold inventories -
Whether the AO's failure to make an addition for the deemed annual letting value of unsold inventories constitutes an "error" that is "prejudicial to the interest of revenue."? - HELD THAT:- Order of the AO is very cryptic and no inquiries/verification were made even though assessment was reopened for that very specific purpose. The Ld. PCIT has issued a show cause notice with a specific purpose as to leaving tax on unsold inventories of Rs. 54.26 crores when the project was 100% complete.
Bench agrees with the view of PCIT who relied on the judicial precedent laid down in the case of Ansal Housing Financial and Leasing Company Ltd. [2012 (11) TMI 323 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Emtci Engineering Ltd. [1996 (4) TMI 145 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C] where it was specifically held that the “income from house property” has to be offered for tax purpose on the unsold inventories. We further draw our inference by placing reliance on the decision Gundecha Builders [2019 (1) TMI 112 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CIT Vs. Sane Doshi Enterprises [2015 (4) TMI 882 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where it was held that the income from unsold inventories of a building should be offered under the head “income from house property”.
Similar view was taken by in the case of DCIT Vs. M/s. Inorbit Malls P. Ltd. [2022 (10) TMI 1150 - ITAT MUMBAI] in which reliance was placed on the decision of Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Company Ltd. [2012 (11) TMI 323 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where it was held that the vacant units in the possession of the appellant are liable to be charged as notional rental income under the head income from house property on the basis of their annual letting value.
The rental income should be offered on notional basis as per the statute. This order of the coordinate Bench was very exhaustive and binding in nature as it dealt with all cases relating to the core issue.
AO committed an “error” of not making the addition of notional annual letting value on vacant units of building, for which the assessment was reopened. This error caused “prejudice to the interest of Revenue” by not taxing the amount as mentioned above. Thus, the twin conditions of “error” and ‘prejudice to the interest of Revenue” were fulfilled - Decided against assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 31
Denial of deduction u/s 80IA(4) - audit report in Form-10CCB was filed belatedly i.e., not along with the return of income - HELD THAT:- We find the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tarasafe International (P.) Ltd [2024 (10) TMI 363 - ITAT KOLKATA] after considering the decision of Wipro Ltd.,[2022 (7) TMI 560 - SUPREME COURT] has held that when the audit report is filed before the final order of assessment, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80JJAA.
Since the assessee in the instant case has admittedly filed the audit report in Form-10CCB prior to the processing of the return, therefore, assessee cannot be denied deduction u/sec.80IA(4) - Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 30
Revision u/s 263 - As per CIT allowance of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue - HELD THAT:- As undisputed fact that the issue on which the PCIT has invoked jurisdiction u/s 263 has already been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in its favour. Merely because the department has not accepted the decision of the Tribunal and has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, therefore, in our opinion, the order of the AO cannot be held as erroneous. In our opinion, it may be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue but certainly not erroneous.
As decided in the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd. [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] has held that in order to invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 the twin conditions must be satisfied i.e. the order must be erroneous and the order must be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
In the instant case, the Tribunal has already decided the issue in favour of the assessee though it has not been accepted by the Revenue and the appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court and since the AO on the basis of submissions made by the assessee and relying on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case has not made any addition / disallowance, therefore, the order of the AO in our opinion cannot be held to be erroneous - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 29
Deduction u/s 54F - as per AO assessee has diverted the money to the family concern without purchase of any residential house and the entire transaction for claiming exemption u/s 54F is manipulated and doctored - actual sale deed has not been entered into within the specified period and such an MoU has been entered into with a concern where the assessee and the family members are shareholders.
HELD THAT:- We find as in the case of CIT vs. Smt. B.S. Shantakumari [2015 (8) TMI 274 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held that once it is established by the assessee that she had invested entire net consideration in construction of residential house within stipulated period, it would meet requirement of section 54F and she would be entitled to get benefit of section 54F even if the construction was not completed within a period of three years.
We find in the case of Lalitkumar Kesarimal Jain [2019 (9) TMI 1138 - ITAT PUNE] has held that mere fact that assessee was one of associated parties in said concern which was developing housing project, could not be a ground to deny benefit of deduction u/s 54F.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 482 - SUPREME COURT] has held that advances paid for purpose of purchase and / or acquisition of plant / machinery, and land / building amount to utilization by assessee of capital gains under section 54G
Thus, considering the fact that the assessee has admittedly entered into MoU and paid an amount of Rs. 10.60 crores to M/s. Kumar Housing Corporation, which finds mention in the sale deed executed subsequently, therefore, merely because the assessee and his family members are the shareholders in KUD and that the sale deed has been executed after a period of two years, the assessee in our opinion cannot be denied the benefit of deduction u/s 54F of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 28
Reopening assessment u/s 147 - “reason to believe” - cash deposits in the undisclosed bank account - HELD THAT:-Whether material would conclusively prove escapement of income is not the concern at that stage. Requirement is that there should be prima facie reason at the stage of reopening. The sufficiency or correctness of the reason cannot be examined at the threshold. In the present case, the assessee has not disclosed his SB bank account with Bank of Baroda in his return of income. On the other hand, he had deposited cash of Rs. 13,20,535/-. Hence, there was prima facie reason to reopen the case. Reopening is upheld and ground No.1 is dismissed.
Addition of entire amount of cash deposited in the undisclosed bank account of the assessee - There is nothing on record to suggest that assessee was carrying on any business other than the business of wholesale purchase and sale of vegetables. Therefore, the logical conclusion would be that either he was carrying out the same business a part of which was not disclosed to the Department. It is also possible that part of the profit of his disclosed business was diverted and the amounts were deposited in the SB account. However, it is seen that the appellant has also made multiple withdrawals of almost the same amounts during the year. In absence of any evidence, it cannot be ascertained whether the amounts withdrawn were used for purchase of vegetables or were used for personal expenses or investments. Hence, a reasonable estimate of cash deposit may be considered as income of the assessee. In our view, it will be fair and reasonable if 25% of the cash deposit of is taken as the income of assessee.
Estimation of profit @ 8% by the CIT(A) in lieu of profit @ 35% by the AO on the turnover - Appellant has not disclosed all credit entries even of his disclosed bank account. The appellant has not brought anything on record to show that the nature of the other credit entries are different from sales made by assessee and they are not tenable. Hence, the total credit entries are held to be sales of the assessee during the year. As assessee himself has shown profit @ 8% of the turnover in his ROI. Hence, we do not find any reason, to adopt a profit rate lower than the rate adopted by appellant. Therefore, the decision of CIT(A) in estimating income @ 8% is upheld.
Penalty u/s 271B - failure to get his accounts audited on or before due date - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Wipro Ltd. [2022 (7) TMI 560 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the twin conditions of furnishing a declaration before the AO and that too before due date of filing original return u/s 139(1) are to be satisfied and both are mandatorily to be complied with. Hence, we agree with the CIT(A) that filing of audit report is mandatory and only exception for non-compliance is to establish with documentary evidence a “reasonable cause”. The assessee has not been able to establish any reasonable cause for failure to get accounts audited. In fact, he had estimated profit @ 8% on turnover of Rs. 32,34,156/- though the actual turnover was Rs. 89,63,222/-. No reasons are given as to why such a lower turnover was shown by the assessee. Hence, the accounts were not audited by showing turnover below limit prescribed u/s 44AB of the Act but assessee is taking the plea that he was not aware of the provisions of section 44AB of the Act. In view of the above facts the ground is dismissed.
....
|
9911796707
