Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2024 2024 (9) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 181 to 200 of 1721 Records

• 2024 (9) TMI 1543
  

  Interpretation of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules - Blocking of input tax credit - excess of the credit available in their respective ECLs - It is the case of the petitioners that Rule 86A of the Rules does not permit blocking of the ITC, which is unavailable in a taxpayer’s ECL - whether Rule 86A of the Rules permits the Commissioner or an officer authorized by him, to block a taxpayer’s ECL (Electronic Credit Ledger) by an amount exceeding the credit available at the time of issuance of the said order?.

  Nature of Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT:- A brief purview of the provisions of the CGST Act clearly indicate that a taxpayer is entitled to ITC only to the extent as provided under the CGST Act and subject to the stipulated conditions being satisfied. There is no cavil that if the conditions as set out under the CGST Act are not satisfied, the registered taxpayer would not be entitled to avail and utilize the ITC in respect of supplies received by it. The right to avail and utilize the ITC is thus a statutory right, which accrues by virtue of the provisions of the CGST Act and is subject to the conditions as set out therein. This right to avail and utilize the ITC is a valuable right. It is, undeniably, an asset, which vests with a taxpayer if the taxpayer satisfies all the stipulated conditions for such entitlement.

  In a scheme for taxation, which provides for credit for taxes on inputs, the taxpayer would be entitled to such credit subject to complying with all the necessary conditions for validly availing the same. If the conditions for validly availing the same are satisfied, it would vest a right with the taxpayer to utilize the same in accordance with the relevant statute. Undeniably, the said right is a valuable right and a taxpayer cannot be deprived of the same except by a validly enacted statute or rules. It is settled law that legislature has wide latitude in laws relating to economic activities. The legislature is required to be allowed sufficient ‘play in the joints’ as it has to deal with complex problems - Although, the legislature has a wide discretion and the Courts must defer to the legislative wisdom, the fiscal statutes are not immune from the constitutional framework and must necessarily be compliant with the constitutional guarantees.

  Rule 86A of the CGST Rules - a drastic power - HELD THAT:- Rule 86A of the Rules falls within Chapter IX of the Rules, and expressly empowers the Commissioner or any other officer authorized by him, not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner, to not allow debit of an amount from the ECL subject to the conditions specified therein being satisfied - Rule 86A of the Rules, is not a provision for recovery of tax or other dues. It enables the concerned authority to take temporary measures for the protection of the interest of revenue - The same is necessarily to be borne in mind while interpreting the provisions of Rule 86A of the Rules.

  Rule 86A, not condition of grant of exemption/concession - HELD THAT:- An order under Rule 86A of the Rules is premised on the Commissioner or the officer authorized by him, having reason to believe that the available ITC has either been availed fraudulently or is ineligible on account of the circumstances as set out in Clauses (a) and (d) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 86A of the Rules. An order under Rule 86A of the Rules is not in the nature of a condition to be complied by the taxpayer or a burden to be discharged by it. It is an order passed in exercise of drastic powers that are granted to the concerned authority. Such a power can be exercised only if the conditions set out in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 86A of the Rules are satisfied and the extent of such power is circumscribed by Rule 86A of the Rules.

  There is some similarity in the language of Section 83 (1) of the CGST Act, which enables the Commissioner to provisionally attach a taxpayer’s assets for protecting the interest of the Revenue, with the language of Rule 86A of the Rules. The powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the CGST Act and under Rule 86A of the Rules, can be exercised only if the concerned authority has reasons to believe that the conditions as stipulated in the respective provisions are satisfied. In M/s S.S. Industries v. Union of India [2020 (12) TMI 1120 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], the Gujarat High Court had also observed that the provisions of Rule 86A of the Rules are reminiscent to Section 83 of the CGST Act.

  Principles of interpretation of Rule 86A - HELD THAT:- If there is no credit of input tax available in the ECL, one of the necessary conditions for passing an order under Rule 86A (1) of the Rules would not be satisfied. The fact that the Commissioner (or an officer authorized by him) may have reasons to believe that in the past a taxpayer had availed and utilized ITC by debiting its ECL is not the condition precedent for passing an order under Rule 86A (1) of the Rules - The words “credit of input tax available in the electronic credit ledger” plainly refers to the credit, which is at the given point of time available in the taxpayer’s ECL. If the same had already been utilized in payment of tax, penalties or other dues, or has been refunded, the same would not be available in the ECL.

  There is no cavil that ITC is availed by a registered person when he files a return and the same is credited in his ECL. The credit of input tax as available in the ECL is then available to the taxpayer for discharging his dues under the CGST Act or in given cases, for seeking its refund.

  When Rule 86A (1) of the Rules refers to the ITC available in the ECL of a taxpayer (which the Commissioner or the officer authorized by him has reason to believe has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible), it clearly refers to the amount that is lying to the credit of the taxpayer in his ECL. It is difficult for us to accept that the expression “available in the electronic credit ledger” should be read as the ITC that was available in the ECL sometime earlier, prior to the same being used - In a case where the Commissioner or an officer authorized by him has a reason to believe that the tainted ITC is less than the ITC credited in the ECL, then it would necessarily follow that the order under Rule 86A (1) of the Rules would be confined to such amount as equivalent to the ITC, which the Commissioner or an officer authorized by him has reasons to believe has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible.

  Circular dated 02.11.2021 relied upon by the learned counsel for the Revenue do not support the contentions advanced by them. On the contrary, the same support the literal construct of Rule 86A of the Rules and also clarify that the amount of debit to be disallowed from the ECL should not be more than the amount of the ITC, which is believed to have been fraudulently availed or is ineligible. However, this would necessarily be subject to the conditions referred to in the opening sentence of Rule 86A (1) of the Rules, which is that the same is available in the ECL of an assessee. Thus, if the amount of the ITC available in the ECL exceeds the amount, which the Commissioner or any officer authorized by him, has reason to believe is ineligible or fraudulently availed, the amount which is blocked (not allowed to be debited) is required to be restricted to an amount equivalent to the fraudulent or inadmissible ITC.

  Since there is no ambiguity in the plain language of Rule 86A (1) of the Rules, it is not necessary to resort to the rule of purposive interpretation. However, it is found that the aforesaid interpretation is also in conformity with the legislative scheme of the CGST Act and the Rules.

  An order under Rule 86A (1) of the Rules does not require a prior show cause notice to be issued to a taxpayer as it is by its very nature an emergent provision to immediately block the usage of the ITC credited in the ECL, which the Commissioner or an officer authorized by him has reasons to believe has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible. The concerned authorities are required to proceed to determine whether a taxpayer has wrongly availed or utilized the ITC, under Sections 73 or 74 of the CGST Act and if it is found that the taxpayer has wrongly availed of the ITC the proper officer is required to pass an order to determine the amount of tax, interest or penalty payable. The demand as raised are required to be determined under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act.

  Rule 86A (1) of the Rules does not contemplate an order, the effect of which is to require a taxpayer to replenish his ECL with valid availment of ITC, to the extent of ITC used in the past, which the Commissioner or an officer authorized by him has reasons to believe, was fraudulently availed or was ineligible. Such an interpretation would in effect amount to construe an order under Rule 86A (1) of the Rules as an order for recovery of tax. This is obvious because the taxpayer would now have to incur a larger cash outflow for payment of taxes as he would be denied utilization of validly availed ITC, which he would require to accumulate to compensate for the ITC availed and utilized which the Commissioner or an officer authorized by him, has reasons to believe was fraudulently availed or was ineligible.

  The orders impugned in the present petitions are set aside to the extent the impugned orders disallow debit from the respective ECL of the petitioners, in excess of the ITC available in the ECL at the time of passing of the impugned orders - Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1542
  

  Levy of GST - supply of free power - nothing but “consideration” towards licensing services rendered by the State Governments - whether supply of free power @ 12% as compensation to the respective states where distress is caused by setting up the hydro power projects, can be subjected to Service Tax or GST? - HELD THAT:- There are force in the contentions of the petitioner that GST is levied on supply of goods and services in lieu of “consideration”; that there a serious doubt as to whether the supply of free electricity is in the nature of “ consideration” at all in order to subject it to GST or it is a “compensation” for distress caused by setting up of the Hydro electric Project ; and that the respondents cannot impose GST on free electricity provided by the petitioner by treating the same as “consideration” towards the alleged services provided by the State Government as a supplier.

  Taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a Government Company and huge liability is imposed on it by the respondents, though another department i.e., Central Excise Department of the Government, has taken a diametrical opposite view, pending further orders, there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure P-1, dt. 14.06.2024.

  List on 18.11.2024.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1541
  

  Seeking grant of regular bail - operating a web of fake firms by using credentials of various persons - offence punishable under Sections 132 (1) (c) punishable under Section 132 (1) (i) (1) of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegation levelled against the applicant, the fact that similarly situated accused, namely, Hemant Kasera, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16.08.2024 passed in MCRC No. 4586 of 2024 in similar nature of offence, the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.05.2024 and the charge-sheet/complaint has been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence, without commenting anything on merits of the case, regular bail granted to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of Applicant - Sandeep Bansal is allowed.

  If the applicant - Sandeep Bansal furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, he be released on bail involved in Crime No.05/FIC//GST/2024-25, registered at Police Station – Central GST, Raipur, (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 132 (1) (c) punishable under Section 132 (1) (i) (1) of CGST Act, 2017 - appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1540
  

  Cancellation of petitioner’s GST registration with retrospective effect - no reply to the show cause notice has been submitted - It is the petitioner’s case that he has not received a copy of the GSTI field visit report on the basis of which the impugned SCN and the impugned order are founded - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is material to note that the impugned SCN did not propose cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration with retrospective effect. Thus, the petitioner had no opportunity to respond to any such action. Although, the impugned SCN had mentioned that it required the petitioner to appear before the concerned officer at the appointed date or time, the said impugned SCN did not mention any such date or time.

  There is merit in the contention of the petitioner that it was not afforded a full opportunity to respond to the impugned SCN and to show cause why its GST registration should not be cancelled with retrospective effect. It is material to note that the impugned order does not indicate any specific reason for cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration ab initio.

  It is considered apposite to grant the petitioner another opportunity to respond to the said action. The impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to furnish a copy of the GSTI field visit report to the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to file a reply/response to the said impugned SCN, on the assumption that it proposes cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration with retrospective effect, within a period of two weeks thereafter - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1539
  

  Seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent - wilful disobedience of directions of this Court - HELD THAT:- Ex facie, the present contempt petition is not maintainable. This Court vide the aforesaid order directed the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for cancellation of GST registration in an expeditious manner and preferably within four weeks from the date of such order.

  In view of the fact that the directions passed in the order dated 13.08.2024 have since been complied with, the present contempt petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek relief separately in accordance with law.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1538
  

  Short payment of Goods and Services Tax - prayer for adjudication of challenge to appellate order - HELD THAT:- The issue stands covered in M/S. MAA TARINI TRADERS, M/S. SURA CONSTRUCTION, M/S. SMT. AMULU PATRO, M/S. THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED, ASHISH MOHANTY, M/S. V.S.T. TILLERS TRACTORS LIMITED, NIRANJAN PRADHAN VERSUS STATE OF ODISHA & OTHERS, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, & ANOTHER, CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF C.T. & G.S.T., ODISHA, CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS (CBIC) , DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE & OTHERS, C.T. & G.S.T. OFFICER, CUTTACK-I [2024 (2) TMI 1421 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'The Petitioners are desirous of availing the statutory remedy of Appeal under the said provisions. Apparently, acknowledging the absence of constitution of Appellate Tribunal, in exercise of the power conferred under section 172 of the CGST Act, 2017, the Government of India based on the recommendation made by the G.S.T. Council, has issued Central Goods and Services Tax (Ninth Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 on 03.12.2019.'

  The first Division Bench directed a quantum of deposit with liberty to parties in as much as, petitioner could avail of its remedy upon constitution of the Tribunal and in event petitioner does not do so within time provided upon reconstitution, the department would be free to proceed.

  The writ petition is disposed of as covered by M/s. Maa Tarini Traders.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1537
  

  Cancellation of registration of petitioner - appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation - opportunity of hearing as not provided - order was passed without assigning any reason for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the present matter, order of cancellation of registration is passed without giving any reason by the respondent authorities, and appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 107 of the GST Act is also dismissed.

  As the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, the respondent authorities will not be able to exercise the revisional power under section 108 of the GST Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the order of cancellation of registration are required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer at the show cause notice stage. However, the registration of the petitioner shall remain suspended till the show-cause notice is decided by the Assessing Officer as per the directions imposed.

  This petition is partly allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as order of cancellation of registration and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer at show-cause notice stage, however, the registration number of the petitioner shall remain suspended till such show cause notice is disposed of as per the directions given above.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1536
  

  Attachment of petitioners’ bank account - challenge to steps taken by the respondents pursuant to an order of rectification - irregular recovery of amount before expiry of appeal filing period - HELD THAT:- Having ascertained that the petitioners, till date, have not preferred any appeal from the order passed under Section 73 of the said Act, in respect whereof, the petitioners had sought for rectification which was turned down by order dated 2nd May 2024, the petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the aforesaid order dated 7th December, 2023 or the order dated 2nd May, 2024, before this Court by invoking the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, especially when there is an efficacious alternate remedy available to the petitioners.

  The petitioners are permitted to approach the appellate authority. In the event, the petitioners approach the appellate authority within a period of 15 days from date, the appellate 2 authority, having regard to the pendency of the writ petition before this Court, shall condone the delay and hear out the appeal on merits with in a period of 8 weeks from the date of filing of the appeal.

  In the event, the appeal is filed with in the time prescribed here in above, and if it is found that 10 per cent of the tax in dispute has already been recovered from the petitioner or in the alternative if the above amount is deposited as pre-deposit along with the appeal, having regard to the provisions contained under Section 107(7) of the said Act, the orders which shall form subject matter of challenge before the appellate authority, shall be deemed to be stayed and consequentially, the order of attachment of the petitioners’ bank account issued in Form GST DRC – 13 dated 25th June, 2024 shall not be given further effect.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1535
  

  Seeking grant of interim stay - Time Limitation - impugned order passed beyond the period of limitation since the last date for passing the said impugned order was expired on 30.04.2024 itself - HELD THAT:- This Court is satisfied and is inclined to grant an order of interim stay. Accordingly, there shall be an order of interim stay till the next date of hearing.

  Post this matter after 4 weeks.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1534
  

  Seeking grant of regular bail - formation of thirteen bogus firms and evasion of payment of tax - offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(1)(1) of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- The nature of the allegation levelled against the applicant, further considering the fact that the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet/complaint has been filed before the jurisdictional Court against the applicant, also considering the fact that the maximum punishment provided under the CGST Act is upto 05 years and the same is also compoundable one, also considering the order of the Apex Court in SANDEEP GOYAL VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2020 (5) TMI 240 - SC ORDER] and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 03.04.2024, hence, without commenting anything on merits of the case, it is required to grant regular bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of Applicant Hemant Kasera is allowed.

  If the applicant, Hemant Kasera, furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, he be released on bail involved in Crime No. 01/F.I.C./G.S.T./2024-25 registered at Police Station : Central GST Department, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 132(1)(b), 132(1)(c) and 132(1)(1)(1) of the GST Act. Order shall be in force till disposal of the case in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1533
  

  Short payment of Goods and Services Tax - no Tribunal is functioning - challenge for adjudication of challenge to that part in appellate order, by which he is aggrieved - HELD THAT:- The first Division Bench directed a quantum of deposit with liberty to parties inasmuch as, petitioner could avail of his remedy upon constitution of the Tribunal and in event he or any one of them does not do so with in time provided upon reconstitution, the department would be free to proceed.

  The writ petition is disposed of.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1532
  

  Principles of natural justice - seeking direction to additional 9th respondent to consider Ext.P16 in accordance with the law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- This writ petition will stand disposed of directing the additional 9th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P16 after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1531
  

  Denial of ITC to the petitioner on account of the provisions contained in Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Acts - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the directions issued by this Court in M. Trade Links V. Union of India [2024 (6) TMI 288 - KERALA HIGH COURT], this writ petition can be disposed of, setting aside Ext. P1 assessment order to the extent that it denied input tax credit on account of the provisions contained in Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Acts and directing that the claim of the petitioner be considered in terms of the directions issued by this Court in M. Trade Links.

  Exts.P1assessment order is set aside to the extent that it denies input tax credit on account of the provisions contained in Section 16(4) of the CGST/SGST Act and it is directed that benefit of the directions contained in the judgment in M.Trade Links shall also be extended to the petitioner - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1530
  

  Denial of Input Tax Credit for the year 2018-19 - delayed filing of Form GSTR-3B - HELD THAT:- This writ petition will stand disposed of holding that the directions contained in the judgment of this Court in [2024 (6) TMI 288 - KERALA HIGH COURT] will apply to the petitioner also, where it was held that 'When the ITC is not an absolute right but is an entitlement subject to the conditions and restrictions prescribed under the Statute, the conditions, restrictions and time limit specified by law form the fulcrum on which the grant of ITC and tax collection for each financial year are balanced. The Scheme of the Act also provides that only tax collected and paid to the government could be given as input tax credit.'

  Exts. P1 and P2 will stand set aside to the extent of denial of credit on account of belated filing of Form GSTR-3B. The competent among the respondents shall consider the directions contained in the judgment of this Court in M.Trade Links and pass fresh orders considering the factual situation in this case, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

  Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1529
  

  Assessment against deceased person - as argued despite having been informed that the assessee had expired, respondent have proceeded to initiate action under Section 148 of the Act in the name of the deceased assessee - HELD THAT:- The requirement of issuing notice in the name of a right person and not to a dead person is not merely a procedural requirement but is a condition precedent to the impugned notice being valid in law.

  Even though, the initial notice under Section 148 was issued during the lifetime of the assessee, the eventual reassessment action was commenced on the basis of notice under Section 148A (b) which resulted in issuance of impugned notice under Section 148 - Admittedly, both the impugned notices are in the name of the deceased person.

  Since the petitioner had already informed the Department about the death of the deceased, his participation in the reassessment proceedings cannot be regarded as waiver or submitting to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without objection. The notice under Section 148A (b) dated 26.05.2022 therefore suffers from a fundamental jurisdictional error, having been issued in the name of a dead person. Not only this, the proceedings initiated consequent to such notice have also been proposed in the name of a dead person. No steps were taken to bring the legal heirs of the deceased on record even at the time of issuance of final notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 30.07.2022. Reassessment proceeding set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1528
  

  Validity of assessment order passed - Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner argued that Assessment Orders were passed without allowing document uploads, seeking another opportunity - Also as per Section 144B of the Act, the petitioner is entitled for two draft Assessment Orders which have not been furnished and therefore on this ground also the impugned Assessment Orders are liable to be quashed - HELD YHAT:- There has been a violation of principles of natural justice although the respondents cannot be fully found fault with.

  Be that as it may, to balance the interest of the parties, the impugned order is set aside and the cases are remitted back to the second respondent to pass a fresh orders on merits in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1527
  

  Complaint u/s 276CC - Prosecution Proceedings - Assessee not filed returns - as argued petitioner though failed to file his returns within the time stipulated during the said assessment year, he had no taxable income and that has been accepted by the Department by their own proceedings - In case, the returns if the tax payable by him on the total income determined on regular assessment after reducing the advanced tax, if any paid does not exceed Rs. 3,000/- - HELD THAT:- The sanction to prosecute, issued by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has dealt this issue and explained that the embargo of Rs. 3000/- in proviso B of Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act applies only in cases where a regular assessment has been framed.

  However, in the instant case, no regular assessment has been framed for the year in question and therefore relying upon the judgment of Anil Kumar Sinha Vs. Union of India [2013 (6) TMI 284 - PATNA HIGH COURT]

  This Court following the Judgements of Patna High Court rendered in Anil Kumar Sinha Vs. Union of India [SUPRA] and the judgment of CIT Vs. Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Limited [2010 (1) TMI 263 - KERALA HIGH COURT] which has clearly dealt with the issue which is now subject matter for consideration holds that the assessee does not fall within the meaning and scope of a regular assessment to get the protection to the proviso to 278 CC of the Income Tax Act. Hence, he has to face the prosecution.

  Records reveals that the trial in this case has already commenced and the complainant has been examined in chief by P.W.1 and cross examination is deferred at the request of the petitioner.

  In the said circumstances, it is appropriate for the petitioner herein to face the trial and put forth his defence in the course of trial and seek remedy. Hence, the matter is not fit for quash for the reasons stated above.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1526
  

  Demand raised on Non-deposit of the TDS amounts by the Employer - as argued that the demand notices issued by respondent No. 1 are invalid as tax was deducted at source by the employer - HELD THAT:- The mandate of Section 205 is absolutely clear that the assessee shall not be called upon to pay taxes himself to the extent to which tax has been deducted from the asessee’s income. The object and purpose behind the provision is to the effect that when an obligation to deposit the tax as in the present case, is on the employer and if the employer has defaulted, the liability to pay such tax cannot be shifted so as to be foisted on the employee, who is in fact the beneficiary of the payment to be received from the employer and who would also become the beneficiary of the tax being deposited at source on his behalf. Such is the object of the provision. However, what the department has done is that without a warrant in law, the liability to pay such tax is being foisted on the petitioners, which is clearly in the teeth of Section 205 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, looked from any angle, it was not permissible for respondent No. 2 to raise any such demand against the petitioners.

  The impugned demand notices issued to the petitioners stand quashed and set aside being in breach of Section 205 of the Income Tax Act,1961. As clarified that if there is any other tax demand from the petitioners on any other count, all issues on the same are expressly kept open, as we have not adjudicated the other issues except the demand notice in relation to the TDS amounts not deposited by the petitioners’ employers.

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1525
  

  Application u/s 158AB - Procedure where an identical question of law is pending before High Courts or Supreme Court - HELD THAT:- Having perused the provisions of Section 158AB as also Rule 16 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as also the record which annexes Form 8A which sets out all the necessary details qua the proceedings as noted hereinabove, in our opinion, the application needs to be accepted as consented by the respondent/assessee.

  This Miscellaneous Application is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) & (b).

  ---

• 2024 (9) TMI 1524
  

  Rejection of Exemption u/s 11 - trust had spent a sum towards one Meenakshi Sundararajan, who is the wife of the founder of the trust - violation of Section 13(1)(c) - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has correctly held that the first issue with regard to the rejection of the claim made by the assessee trust for getting exemption under Section 11 of the Act is concerned, the payment to the said Meenakshi Sundararajan cannot be construed as a violation of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act because the trust was established well before the Act came into force, that is, on 01.02.1961 and the Memorandum of Association of the trust had paved the way for making this amount of honorarium to the trustees. When that being so, it is strictly in consonance with the Memorandum of Association and therefore, it cannot be construed as a violation of Section 13(1)(c).

  Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under Section 11 of the Act. When that being so, the Assessing Authorities' move to treat the entire income as a taxable income is erroneous and therefore, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority as confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) has been reversed.

  Claim of depreciation is concerned, the Tribunal followed its own decision in M/s.Mohamed Sathak Trust [2013 (10) TMI 1482 - ITAT CHENNAI] and also decided the said issue in favour of the assessee.

  ---

1 ....67891011121314........ 87