|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 467 Records
-
2025 (1) TMI 167
Addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - no exempt income is earned - HELD THAT:- Since admittedly the assessee has not received any exempt income during this year, therefore, respectfully following the above decision passed by the Jurisdictional Tribunal [2024 (10) TMI 479 - ITAT PUNE] & in absence of any adverse material brought on record by the revenue, we are of the considered opinion that no addition is called for u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the IT Rules. We therefore do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the same is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 166
Allowability of deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) - HELD THAT:- The grounds related to allowability of deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. [2021 (1) TMI 488 - SUPREME COURT] Accordingly, we dismiss this ground of the Revenue in all these appeals.
Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) with respect to interest paid to the depositor - HELD THAT:- We completely agree with the view taken by the ld. CIT (A) that once it is held that the assessee is primary agricultural society, the provisions of sec. 194A(3)(viia) of the Act are squarely applicable and accordingly, no deduction of tax at source is required to be made on the interest payment to depositors held with primary agricultural society. Decided against revenue.
-
2025 (1) TMI 165
Validity of Reassessment proceedings - unexplained deposit in the bank account - HELD THAT:- Reasons for reopening of assessment namely credit entries of assessee’s minor child was not clubbed the same in assessee’s Return of Income. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the SBI Account which was opened in the name of Shri Vivan Joshi but later assessee’s name was added as an joint account holder.
The rental income from SBI Life Insurance Co. and Aditya Retail were offered for taxation by the assessee through this Bank account. Thus the assessee disclosed the transaction reflected in the bank account.
CIT(A) deleted the addition as unexplained credit deposit in the bank account which was the prime facie basis for reopening of assessment. When the basic reasons recorded for reassessment itself is deleted, there cannot be any further addition in the reopened assessment, and such additions cannot sustainable in law. Since the foundation of reassessment proceedings is a valid notice, if this notice is held to be invalid, the entire edifice sought to be raised on such foundation has to collapse and therefore the entire reassessment proceedings liable to be quashed.
As relying on B.P. PODDAR FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION [2022 (9) TMI 660 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and JOGINDER SINGH [2015 (6) TMI 1217 - ITAT AMRITSAR] no hesitation in holding that the reassessment itself is bad in law since Ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition being unexplained deposit in the bank account which was clearly disclosed by the assessee in his Return of Income - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 164
Validity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - non-disposal of the objection before finalization of the assessment order - HELD THAT:- Since in the instant case, the AO has passed the assessment order without disposing-of the objections filed by the assessee for reopening of the assessment, the impugned assessment will not be valid as per the decision rendered in the case of KSS Petron Private Ltd. [2016 (10) TMI 1112 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 163
Disallowance u/s. 37 - disallowance of provision for Bad debts written back and disallowance of warranty provision - HELD THAT:- Assessee has rightly computed the disallowable item under the excess of provision for bad debts and excess of provision of warranty. However, due to absence of respective columns in the income-tax return to demonstrate the adding back of the provisions made in the profit and loss account and then claiming of actual expenses incurred during the year, the assessee has netted off both the amounts and has only stated the amount as the amount disallowable during the year.
Even though these details were filed before the AO it seems that he has overlooked the submissions filed by the assessee.
Considering the details of actual break up of warranty supplied during the year and the customer-wise break up of bad and doubtful debts written back during the year which are majorly the limited companies and mainly include Tata Motors Ltd. and Ashok Leyland Ltd. etc., find that the claim of the assessee was justified and CPC erred in making the alleged adjustments.
Therefore set-aside the finding of the CIT(A) and delete the disallowances made u/s. 37 and allow the effective Grounds raised by the assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 162
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - deposits in its bank accounts during the demonetization period - HELD THAT:- AO while framing the assessment vide his order u/s 144 had not rejected the books of account of the assessee company. On the contrary, the AO by adopting the “Net profit” disclosed in the “Profit and loss account” of the assessee company as the base figure for determining/assessing its income had accepted its “books results”.
As the AO had accepted the books of accounts of the assessee company, therefore, there could be no justification for him to have rejected the explanation of the assessee company that the cash deposits made during the demonetization period in his subject bank accounts were sourced from its business receipts forming part of the said books of accounts for the year under consideration.
A view to the contrary would lead to incongruous result, i.e, while for the “net profit” arising from the duly accounted business transactions is accepted and brought to tax by the AO; but the said business transactions explaining the availability of cash-in-hand with the assessee as on 08.11.2016 is not to be accepted.
A.O cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time, i.e., accept the book results (as disclosed by the assessee company based on its audited books of account), and at the same time, reject the duly accounted business transactions disclosed in the books of accounts which revealed that the cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee company were sourced out of the cash-in- hand available with it as on 08.11.2016.
The fact as can be gathered from a perusal of the “cash book” of the assessee company, reveals that the availability of cash-in-hand of Rs. 12,00,442.54 as on 08.11.2016 is found to be in parity with the cash-in-hand available with the assessee both during the pre-demonetization and post-demonetization period, a fact which further dispels all doubts as regards the claim of the assessee company that the cash deposits in its bank accounts during the demonetization period was sourced from the cash-in-hand available with him as on 08.11.2016.
No finding no justification on the part of the AO in treating the cash deposits as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 161
Deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) - Interest received by the assessee society from Raipur Central Co-operative Bank - HELD THAT:- AO is directed to allow the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) interest received by the assessee society from Raipur Central Co-operative Bank. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee society is allowed.
Deduction of Income Tax Paid - As per the mandate of Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession or assessed at a proportion of or otherwise on the basis of any such profits or gains is not deductible while computing the business income, therefore, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the lower authorities, and thus, approve the same. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee society is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations.
-
2025 (1) TMI 160
Nature of receipt - severance fee received by way of compensation on voluntary retirement under the Compulsory Retirement Scheme (CRS) - income receipt or capital receipt - HELD THAT:- No infirmity in the order of the ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Chandigarh in concluding that as severance compensation was made to the assessee at or in connection with the termination of his employment, it will fall within the expression “Profit received in lieu of Salary” as per the provisions of section 17(3)(i) of the Act and therefore liable to be taxed under the head salary in view of the express provision regarding the chargeability of the same.
-
2025 (1) TMI 159
Cash deposits made during the demonetization period - unexplained income u/s 69A - HELD THAT:- Assessee is engaged in wholesale and retail trade of grocery items and allied products which regularly generate cash inflows for the assessee. The only source of income for the assessee is trading activity. In support of its claim, the assessee had furnished bank account statement and cash book for this financial year. The cash receipts as earned out of sale proceeds have duly been accounted for in the books of accounts and the cash balance as available in the cash book has been sourced to make impugned deposits in the banks.
Assessee has maintained purchase ledger, sales ledgers, stock ledger etc. The sales proceeds have duly been reflected in the VAT returns as filed by the assessee which is duly supported by the copies of VAT returns as placed on record. The sales turnover has been offered to tax and making impugned addition again would amount to double taxation.
The cash sales summary for all the years as placed on record would show that that assessee regularly conduct sales in cash and there is no abnormal cash inflow in this year. No defect has been pointed in the books of accounts. Thus as the deposits were sourced out of business receipts, the impugned addition could not be sustained. See M/s RR Foods Pvt. Ltd [2024 (7) TMI 1579 - ITAT CHENNAI].
As in Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. [2024 (10) TMI 1614 - ITAT CHENNAI] holding that simplicitor violation of certain notification issued by RBI would not entitle the revenue to make addition u/s 69 or 69A since the requirement of these sections should be fulfilled independently. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 158
Challenge to seizure proceedings initiated by the appellants - ‘proper officer’ for the purpose of Section 28 (4) of the Customs Act, 1962 for initiating proceedings and issuing a show cause notice to recovery duty - whether the proceedings initiated by the authorities of the Appellants was justified or not? - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court, in Commissioner of Customs [2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT], has observed 'DRI officers came to be appointed as the officers of customs vide Notification No. 19/90-Cus (N.T.) dated 26.04.1990 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. This notification later came to be superseded by Notification No. 17/2002 dated 07.03.2002 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, to account for administrative changes.'
Conclusion - The officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence are proper officers for the purposes of Section 28 and are competent to issue show cause notice thereunder.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 157
Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) of CA, on appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA) - whether there was abetment of the appellant in the misdeclaration of the imported goods? - HELD THAT:- It is on record that the statement of Shri Gyan Prakash Nirmal, Vice President of the importer has never implicated the appellant in the act of alleged misdeclaration of the imported goods. The impugned order vide para 81 categorically places the responsibility of the misdeclaration of the impugned goods on the importer, and specifically on Mr Gyan Prakash Nirmal, based on the investigations & evidences available with the Department. There is not even a whisper of any advice or action undertaken by the appellant to facilitate or abet the said misdeclaration. There is nothing on record to prove that the appellant had connived/abetted with the importers in filing the Bills of Entry for importing the said products, without the mandatory documents. It is also noted that the impugned order for the said offence has already penalized the importer in terms of redemption fine and penalty. Hence, penalty under Section 112(a) can be imposed only if there is evidence of abetment by the appellant.
Conclusion - As there is nothing on record to prove that the appellant had connived/abetted with the importers in filing the documents for importing the restricted products without the mandatory documents, the penalty cannot be sustained.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 156
Classification of imported goods - health supplements - Food supplements - classifiable under CTH 2106 9099 are liable to IGST @28% under Sr. No. 9 of Schedule IV of Notification No. 1/2017- IGST rate or at 18% under serial No. 453 of Schedule III of the said notification? - demand for differential IGST is barred by limitation or otherwise.
Classification of health supplements - HELD THAT:- The issue in the present case is no longer res-integra as the same has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Neuvera Wellness Venture Pvt Ltd [2023 (10) TMI 964 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] wherein by the detailed finding, this Tribunal has considered that the nutrient/health supplements is not covered under Sr. No. 9 of Schedule IV whereas the same is covered under Serial No. 454 of Schedule iii for the purpose of charging the IGST - In view of the above judgment, the issue being identical is no longer res-integra. Accordingly, the assessee imported good attract 18% IGST and not 28%.
Food supplement - HELD THAT:- It is found that the goods are ready to human consumption. Department seeks to classify under CTH 21061000 as Protein Concentrates and Textured protein substances. By description itself it appears that Protein Concentrates cannot be fit for human consumption. At the most Protein Concentrates can be categorized as input for making Protein based food/Health supplement. The department has neither got the goods tested nor adduced any evidence to establish the exact nature of the goods that whether the same is Protein Concentrates or otherwise. Therefore, the burden cast on the revenue in the matter of classification of goods has not been discharged. For this reason, itself as per settled legal position on this point, the case of department clearly fails.
Food Flavouring Material - HELD THAT:- On scrutiny of records and the products leaflets available in appeal papers, it is not found any product which bears the name Food Flavouring Materials. There may be Food/Health supplement products containing miniscule percentage of food flavour which does not mean the said goods itself is food flavour material, therefore, the department's contention on this point cannot be agreed upon.
Time limitation - HELD THAT:- Firstly the appellants have declared the goods as appearing in all the import documents. Therefore, there is no suppression of fact on that part. Secondly, this is a case of demand of IGST which is available as input tax credit for further sale of the goods. Therefore, under any circumstances, the mala fide intention cannot be attributed to the appellant. Accordingly, the demand under extended period is not sustainable also on the ground of limitation.
Conclusion - The health supplements were subject to an 18% IGST rate under Sr. No. 453 of Schedule III, and the demand for differential IGST was time-barred.
The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 155
Rejection of application of the appellant for the listing of shares - appellant had not taken the approval of the shareholders for the allotment of the shares to the Asset Reconstruction Private Limited - HELD THAT:- The conversion of the debt into additional shares had taken place with the agreement of the appellant company and RARE, and it is on the basis of such an agreement between the parties that a resolution was passed on 02.05.2018 by the Board of Directors of the appellant company accepting the proposal to convert the debt into shares and to allot them in favor of RARE, thus, resulting in increase of the equity capital of the appellant company. Even the application for listing of the aforesaid additional shares was made by the appellant company to the BSE meaning thereby that the proposal for increasing the subscribed capital of the company by converting part of the debt into equity shares, as aforesaid, was initiated by the appellant company itself and not actually by RARE. Therefore, the proposal was that of the company only. Accordingly, as contemplated by Section 62(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, the approval of the shareholders would be mandatory before the shares are accepted for listing on the BSE.
For want of approval of the BSE, the Securities Appellate Tribunal has returned a clear finding that the approval of the BSE is necessary in view of Regulation 28 of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 and there are no different opinion on it rather the said finding is accepted which is not perverse in any manner. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is opined that no error or illegality has been committed either by the BSE or the Securities Appellate Tribunal in refusing to accept the request of the appellant company for the listing of the shares at the Stock Exchange inasmuch as Section 62 of the Companies Act stands duly attracted and in the light of sub-clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 62 of the Companies Act, special resolution of the shareholders is necessary which is lacking in the instant case.
Conclusion - When a company proposes to increase its subscribed capital, shareholder approval is mandatory under Section 62(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013.
This statutory appeal under Section 22 F of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 is devoid of merit and is dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 154
Dismissal of petition filed by the appellants under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013 - dismissal on the ground it does not meet the criteria as is provided for in Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of the impugned order would show the Ld. NCLT had observed Section 244 of the Companies Act, 2013 requires the following conditions for filing an application/petition under Section 241 of the Companies Act viz. a) in case of a company having share capital, not less than 100 members of the company; or b) not less than 1/10 of the total number of its members whichever is less; or c) Any member of members holding not less than 1/10 of the issued share capital of the company.
Admittedly there were 30 members of Respondent No.1 at the time of filing of Company Petition. Admittedly four of them filed the petition under Section 241 hence condition (b) above viz. not less than 1/10 of the total number of members could apply was fulfilled, thus Company Petition was maintainable.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 153
Seeking grant of bail - money laundering - proceeds of crime - it is alleged that petitioner was involved in dealing with the proceeds of crime and in transferring of funds of M/s. PACL through various companies and making transactions of purchasing of properties etc. - it was held by High Court that 'The petitioner herein is admitted on bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs.25.00 lacs with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and subject to conditions imposed'.
HELD THAT:- It is not required to interfere with the impugned order. Although it is made clear that the observations made in the impugned judgment will not have any bearing on any further proceedings.
SLP dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 152
Maintainability of SLP - Time limitation - HELD THAT:- Though on a prima facie view, the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is agreed, in view of the fact that the impugned order has been passed more than two and a half years ago, and much water has flown under the bridge thereafter, it is not required to interfere with the impugned order(s).
SLP dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 151
Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - commission of a serious economic offence of money laundering - offence punishable under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- In view of the statement made and subject to compliance and deposit as directed, the appellant, Rajkumar Daitapati, shall be released on bail in the event of being arrested in connection with ECIR No. JPZ0/1/2015 (Sessions Case No.37 of 2021) (Enforcement Directorate vs. Rajkumar Daitapati) for the offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, on the terms and conditions fixed by the trial Court. In addition, the appellant will comply with the provisions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 150
Grant of Regular bail - Moeny Laundering - collection of illegal levy amounts from the coal transporters - alleged offences under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of the IPC and Sections 7, 7-A, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT:- The prosecution has collected the material regarding active involvement of the applicants in the syndicate and main accused-Suryakant Tiwari has extorted money, which has been utilized for purchase of properties. Thus, involvement of the applicants in commission of offence under Section 7, 7A & 12 of the PC Act, is prima facie reflected.
Hon’ble the Supreme Court while considering the gravity of economic offence in case of P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT] has held that 'Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation.'
The prosecution has collected sufficient material to demonstrate that the applicants have active participation in the syndicate which has collected illegal money as per the directions of the main accused Suryakant Tiwari by extorting money which has also been utilized for purchase of properties by the accused persons and in the bail petition, they have contended that they are falsely implicated in the crime by taking the stand which is required to be ascertained by the trial Court only during the trial and the applicants have not placed any material to demonstrate that they are not prima facie involved in the commission of offence. The accused persons have nowhere stated that they are unknown to the main accused and there is no linkage between them for commission of offence by the main accused-Suryakant Tiwari with the add of government officers - looking to the involvement of the applicants, gravity of the offence which is economic offence, the applicants are not entitled to get bail. As such, this is not a fit case where the applicants should be granted regular bail.
Conclusion - The prosecution has collected sufficient material to demonstrate that the applicants have active participation in the syndicate which has collected illegal money as per the directions of the main accused. This is not a fit case where the applicants should be granted regular bail.
All the bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. are liable to be and are hereby rejected.
-
2025 (1) TMI 149
Money Laundering - attachment of the properties acquired prior to the commission of the alleged crime - misappropriation of the funds in conspiracy with government officials - lapse of attachment order after expiry of 180 days - No connection between properties and proceeds of crime - Invalidity of scheduled offence.
Properties acquired prior to commission of crime could not have been attached - HELD THAT:- There are no force in the first argument when the proceeds out of crime was not available with the appellant rather vanished and siphoned off,the property of equivalent value has been attached. The proceeds were siphoned off by diverting it to various group companies and by layering the proceeds. In the light of the aforesaid, second limb of the definition of "proceeds of crime" has been applied to attach the property of equivalent value. Thus, the first ground raised by the appellant cannot be accepted.
The attachment order would be lapsed after expiry of 180 days - HELD THAT:- There are no substance in the argument to seek lapse of the provisional attachment order when the intervening period was suffered due to Covid-19 and the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 has been eliminated by the Apex Court for termination of proceedings - the ground for challenge to the order cannot be accepted.
No connection between properties and proceeds of crime - HELD THAT:- The properties were linked to the proceeds of crime through financial transactions and layering - the attachment of properties as connected to the proceeds of crime upheld.
Invalidity of scheduled offence - HELD THAT:- The relevant date is a date when the tainted property is projected to be untainted and as a consequence to it, the ECIR is recorded showing offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act. The relevant date to find out the scheduled offence and the offence of money laundering is when it is projected tobe untainted property to make out an offence under section 3 of the Act of 2002 - the relevant date is of the year 2012 when after registration of FIR other discovery of the offence, an ECIR was recorded in the same year finding an offence of moneylaundering.
Conclusion - The attachment of properties was upheld. The provisional attachment order did not lapse. The properties were connected to the proceeds of crime.
There are no merit in the appeals and they are accordingly dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 148
CENVAT Credit on tax paid in terms of Deposit Insurance Act - input services or not - HELD THAT:- It is, worth-noting, that Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal had expressed its apprehension on the precedent value of M/S. SOUTH INDIAN BANK VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX-CALICUT [2020 (6) TMI 278 - CESTAT BANGALORE - LB] Larger Bench decision for the reason that observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in several other cases including that of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY & ORS. [2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] concerning strict interpretation of taxation statute was not considered, for which suggestion was made for a reference to a still Larger Bench comprising of Five Members but that was negated by the same Three Members Larger Bench with reasoning noted in the said decision including affirmation of the decision of the Larger Bench made in South Indian Bank Ltd. by Hon'ble Kerala High Court and Hon'ble Bombay High Court.
The decision of the Larger Bench made in South Indian Bank that insurance service provided by the Deposit Insurance Corporation to the banks is an “input service” and CENVAT Credit on Service Tax paid by this service received by the banks from the Deposit Insurance Corporation can be availed by the banks for rendering output service, still holds the field.
Conclusion - The admissibility of CENVAT Credit on the Service Tax paid for insurance premiums under the Deposit Insurance Act upheld.
Appeal allowed.
............
|
9911796707
