|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 1354 Records
-
2024 (3) TMI 1034
Exemption under N/N. 214/1986-CE dated 25.03.1986 - manufacture of Metallic Canisters falling under Tariff Heading No. 84799090 on job work basis - HELD THAT:- The principle of judicial discipline requires a lower judicial/ quasi-judicial authority to follow the ratio of the decision by a higher judicial/quasi-judicial authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) has just done that. This principle was explained at length in Supreme Court decision in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS KAMLAKSHI FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. [1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that In the light of these amended provisions, there can be no justification for any Assistant Collector or Collector refusing to follow the order of the Appellate Collector or the Appellate Tribunal, as the case may be, even where he may have some reservations on its correctness. He has to follow the order of the higher appellate authority. This may instantly cause some prejudice to the Revenue but the remedy is also in the hands of the same officer.
It is found that this appeal has been filed by the Revenue on the basis of an order passed by the Committee of Commissioners contrary to the principles of judicial discipline as laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.
The appeal is dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1033
Rate of the State sales tax on silk fabrics - taxable at 4% or 12%? - demand made for the period between 15th January 2000 and 31st March 2000 - HELD THAT:- During the said period, silk fabric was a part of Schedule I of the DST Act, on which sales tax was leviable at the rate of 12%. Sections 14 and 15 of the Central Sales Tax Act were deleted by Act No. 18 of 2017. Section 14, before its deletion, declared certain goods specified therein as of special importance in inter-state trade or commerce. Until 11th May 1968, item (xi) was incorporated in Section 14, which covered the item of “silk sarees”. However, with effect from 11th May 1968, the said item was deleted by Act No. 19 of 1968.
Section 15(1) of the CST Act, as existed during the period for which the impugned assessment was made, provided that the local sales tax rate on declared goods should not exceed 4% of the sale or purchase price of such goods. So long as the silk fabric was a part of the list of declared goods under Section 14 of the CST Act, the sales tax levy under the DST Act could not have exceeded 4% in view of Section 15(1) of the CST Act. However, silk fabric was deleted from the list contained in Section 14 of the CST Act, effective 11 May 1968. Therefore, during the relevant period for which the impugned assessment order was issued, as silk fabric was not a part of the list under Section 14, there was no embargo on levying sales tax on silk fabric at a rate exceeding 4%. Therefore, the argument based on Section 15(1) of the CST Act will not help the appellant.
The second Schedule of the ADE Act provides that during each financial year, each State shall be paid a certain percentage of net proceeds of the additional duties levied and collected during the financial year in respect of the goods described in column (3) of Schedule I. However, no additional duty was made payable on silk fabric under the ADE Act. The proviso makes it clear that notwithstanding the ADE Act, there is no bar on the States levying sales tax - the argument that as silk fabric formed a part of Schedule I of the ADE Act, it disentitled the State Government from levying sales tax is fallacious and cannot be accepted.
The High Court has noted that its Co-ordinate Bench in the case of MR. TOBACCO PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2006 (1) TMI 567 - DELHI HIGH COURT] upheld the validity of notification dated 31st March 2000 issued under the DST Act.
There are no error in the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment - Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1032
Settlement of dues - determination of tax liability under the M.P. Sales Tax Act, M.P. Vat Tax Act, Central Sales Tax Act and Entry Tax Act - HELD THAT:- It is informed that proceedings under the SICA Act were concluded by the order passed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) on 28.01.2024. A copy of the order dated 28.01.2014 is placed and it evidences that the issue relating to the tax claim by the State of Madhya Pradesh has attained finality.
In view of the representation of the Government of Madhya Pradesh in the above referred order of BIFR that the Company had settled their dues, followed by the final direction of the BIFR, that Government need not attend further hearings, nothing remains for consideration in these appeals.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1031
Review petition - Issuance of sales certificate with regard to the sales tax dues - Registration of a Sale Certificate issued in favor of one party for a property purchased in an auction held by another party under the SARFAESI Act. - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another v/s. N Raju Reddiar and Another [1996 (12) TMI 348 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of litigants engaging a fresh set of Advocates to file and also argue matters in Review proceedings, without obtaining the consent of the Advocate who had appeared at the original stage.
In the above case, the Supreme Court dismissed the Review Petition with exemplary costs - the present case is not different and would completely fall in the nature of the proceedings which have been deprecated by the Supreme Court in the above judgement.
The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited by the Petitioner, within a period of four weeks from today, with the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority. In the event, if such costs are not deposited, the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority shall take further steps to recover the said costs as arrears of land revenue.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1030
Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity - petitioner states that proceedings were initiated and that the petitioner could not participate in such proceedings on account of being unaware of the same until such proceedings culminated in the impugned order - HELD THAT:- The position taken by the petitioner is that the entire tax liability has arisen on account of an inadvertent error committed while filing the GSTR 1 return for October 2019. It is further stated that such error was corrected by filing the GSTR 3B and GSTR 9 returns. The entire amount due and payable under the impugned order was appropriated from the petitioner's bank account. Therefore, at this juncture, revenue interest is fully secured. In these circumstances, it is just and necessary to provide the petitioner an opportunity.
The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the respondent for reconsideration. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue a fresh order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1029
Refund claim - Period of limitation - Double Taxation - The respondent had also paid tax on the same invoices. - Seeking direction to the respondents to grant benefit of Input Tax Credit that was paid by the Petitioner on the same invoices for the period 2019-2020, on which, Respondent No. 3 has also paid the tax - HELD THAT:- This petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an appropriate application as mandated by Section 54 of the Act claiming refund. The period between 19.01.2024 till today shall be excluded for the purposes of limitation. Further, the claim of the Petitioner that Petitioner is covered by Notification No. 13/22 shall be considered by the Proper Officer in accordance with law while entertaining the application for refund filed by the Petitioner.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1028
Cancellation of GST registration of petitioner - failure to file Periodic/GST Return - HELD THAT:- The writ petition stands disposed-off with a liberty to the petitioner for moving an application for revocation of cancellation order under Section 30 of the Act of 2017, within two weeks and the petitioner along with his application shall furnish all the GST returns, which he fails to submit and to deposit all the outstanding tax and dues of goods and service tax. If he makes such an application within a period of two weeks, the Proper Officer/Competent Authority shall consider the same, as per law, within four weeks.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1027
Reversal/ Refund of the input tax credit - Principles of Estoppel / principle of res judicata - withdrawal of earlier petition - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is noted that there was no offer made by the respondents calling for petitioner to come for an amicable settlement. It appears that at the time of hearing of the matter when the bench was not agreeing with the petitioner, petitioner unconditionally sought to withdraw the petition. The observation is being made keeping in view the last line of the last paragraph of the order where the Court had specifically clarified that no liberty has been granted to the petitioner is clearly indicates that when the bench were not agreeing with the petitioner, petitioner sought to unconditionally withdraw the petition. Further, this Court has also noticed that the director of the petitioner was not joining investigation and as such, the department was constrained to take the coercive steps.
The petitioner having unconditionally withdrawn the earlier petition and liberty being specifically declined to the petitioner, the petitioner is precluded from filing the present petition seeking the same relief which was earlier withdrawn by the petitioner. No doubt petitioner had withdrawn the proceedings pending investigation. However the said qualification would have only applied in case the investigation had exonerated the petitioner. In the instant case, the investigation has found petitioner culpable and accordingly, a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner which is pending adjudication.
The present petition is barred on the principle of the issue of estoppel and as such the petition is not maintainable and same is consequently dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1026
Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order does not take into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner and is a cryptic order - HELD THAT:- The observation in the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is not sustainable for the reasons that the reply filed by the petitioner is a detailed reply. Proper Officer had to at least consider the reply on merits and then form an opinion whether the reply was unsatisfactory. He merely held that the reply is unsatisfactory which ex-facie shows that Proper Officer has not applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner - Further, if the Proper Officer was of the view that the reply is unsatisfactory and further details were required, the same could have been specifically sought from the petitioner. However, the record does not reflect that any such opportunity was given to the petitioner to clarify its reply or furnish further documents/details.
The impugned order records that petitioner’s reply is not satisfactory. Proper Officer is directed to intimate to the petitioner details/documents, as maybe required to be furnished by the petitioner. Pursuant to the intimation being given, petitioner shall furnish the requisite explanation and documents - the matter is liable to be remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Proper Officer for re-adjudication.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1025
Rejection of petitioner’s application for amendment of the registration, namely, change in address of the petitioner - no opportunity of a hearing was granted to the petitioner before the order is passed - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On a plain reading of Section 28, it is clear that sub-section (1) is an obligation of every registered person and a person to whom a Unique Identity Number (UIN) has been assigned to mandatorily inform the proper officer of any changes in the information furnished at the time of registration or subsequent thereto, in the form as prescribed. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that the proper officer may on the basis of information furnished under sub-section (1) or as ascertained by him, approve or reject amendments in the registration particulars in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed.
The mandate of proviso below sub-section (2) of Section 28 as applied to the present facts brings about a consequence that the impugned order would be required to be held to be in breach of sub-section (2) of Section 28 inasmuch as the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of being heard before the impugned order was passed. Such action on the part of respondent no. 3 clearly breached the mandate of proviso below sub-section (2) of Section 28. On such count alone, the impugned order would be rendered bad and illegal.
This apart, there are serious consequences which are brought about in rejection of an application for amendment. The impugned order also cannot be sustained for the reason that no reasons whatsoever are furnished in rejecting the petitioner’s application for amendment of the registration. It is well settled that in passing any quasi-judicial order, necessarily reasons are required to be attributed, as the reasons would not only demonstrate an application of mind by the concerned officer in taking the decision but also it would enable the person whose application is rejected to know as to what were the reasons which weighed with the authority in rejecting the application. Thus, in the absence of any reason, any quasi-judicial order would be rendered arbitrary, which the law would not recognize to be a valid order.
There can be no two opinions that the impugned order dated 3 November, 2023 would be required to be quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
Suspension of registration of the petitioner and issuing show cause notice for cancellation of the registration - blocking of Input Tax Credit of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- There appears to be much substance in the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner. It appears that the basis for suspension of the petitioner’s registration is on the very issue on the petitioner’s place of business, which was subject matter of the amendment application filed by the petitioner. Such amendment application being rejected, has already been set aside by us by the order passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition. Sofar as the blocking of ITC is concerned, the same has clearly arisen from such issues on the place of business of the petitioner in regard to which an amendment application was filed by the petitioner to amend the registration.
Respondent no. 3 needs to pass an order on the application of the petitioner for amendment of registration within a period of two weeks and subject to the orders which may be passed thereon further appropriate course of action can be adopted as may be permissible in law on any suspension of the petitioner’s registration, as also on the blocking of the ITC if so necessitated - thus, insofar as the show cause notice dated 20 December, 2023 issued to the petitioner by respondent no. 3 is concerned in regard to the cancellation of the registration and considering the reasons as set out in the show cause notice, the fate of the same would certainly depend upon on the orders which respondent no. 3 would intend to pass on the petitioner’s amendment application.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1024
Validity of show cause notice/assessment orders issued by the respondent-GST Department - demand of GST on royalty paid to the respondent-Mining Department towards mining lease - HELD THAT:- In Sudershan Lal Gupta’s case [2022 (10) TMI 43 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], the Division Bench of this Court has held that the action of respondents with regard to imposition of GST on royalty is not liable to be interfered with.
This writ petition is dismissed in terms of the orders passed by this Court in Sudershan Lal Gupta’s case - the stay petition also stands dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1023
Grant of bail - registration under GST obtained on the basis of forged documents - fraudulent evasion of tax - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1022
Recovery of service tax - Validity of instruction issued by the department to the Bank - Restriction from permitting any withdrawal from the accounts held by the appellant until the service tax liability is fully satisfied - Post GST era - HELD THAT:- Ext. P6 order has been passed after complying with all the statutory formalities and giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant for hearing. It cannot be said that Ext. P6 was passed without jurisdiction or without complying with the principles of natural justice. Without challenging Ext. P6 in appeal, the appellant cannot challenge the same in the writ petition. Hence, the challenge against Exts. P6 and P8 must fail.
Appellant submitted that the appellant may be granted instalment facility to clear off the liability, and he may be permitted to operate the bank account on payment of the first instalment. The learned standing counsel for the respondents submitted that the Commissioner has the power to grant a maximum of 24 instalments.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the present financial condition of the appellant, the appellant can be permitted to clear off the service tax liability by way of instalments - appellant shall make a payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- towards the service tax liability on or before 31st January, 2024 - Appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1021
Claim of long-term capital gains on shares in terms of Section 10(38) - Assessee not claiming exemption u/s 10(38) at the stage of the assessment proceedings but turned around and make such claim of wanting to cross-examine persons - Denial of principles of natural justice - denial of an opportunity to cross examine the entry providers -
HC [2023 (2) TMI 392 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] held that claim for benefit of Section 10(38) of the Act and denial of an opportunity to cross examine the entry providers, turned on facts. ITAT was justified in accepting the plea of the Assessee that the failure to adhere the principles of natural justice went to the root of the matter. Also, the CBDT circular that permitted to the Assessee to file revised returns if he omitted to make a claim was also not noticed by the AO.
HELD THAT:- There is gross delay of 298 days/300 days in filing this special leave petition. The explanation offered is not sufficient in law to condone the delay.
Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the special leave petition is also dismissed, keeping open the question of law, if any.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1020
Depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) in respect of intangible assets - Goodwill - Acquisition of business - net assets taken over and the particulars of liability, loans etc - Only contention which has been raised by learned counsel for the revenue is that the assessee has not disclosed the particulars of intangible assets, which have been acquired by it and therefore, it is not entitled for the benefit of depreciation under Section 32(1) - as decided by HC [2020 (12) TMI 672 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Officer itself it is axiomatic that he has found that the goodwill has been calculated and has been allotted to intangibles - HELD THAT:- We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Hence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1019
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Reasons to believe - as alleged there is net reduction of income through misuse of CCM - reliance on information recieved from Ahmedabad Investigation Directorate [Directorate] - Assessee pointed difference and disparity between the information provided to the petitioner and the reasons as existing on the record of the responde - HELD THAT:- Information which triggered the initiation of action was based upon an information received via email from the Ahmedabad Investigation Directorate [Directorate]. The aforesaid report alluded to certain conclusions prima facie arrived at by that Directorate on analysis of data received from the National Stock Exchange, and on the basis whereof the Directorate opined that the Client Code Modification [CCM] system had been used as a tool for tax evasion. Upon receipt of the aforesaid report, the AO while apprising the petitioner of the reasons which warranted re-assessment being undertaken, referred to the report of the Directorate and alluded to an ‘orchestrated misuse’ of CCM with a motive to evade tax. It also referred to a coordinated limited purpose survey undertaken under Section 133A of the Act at the premises of twelve brokers as well as their clients across India in March 2015.
The recordal of facts and reasons in the proforma would clearly indicate that information was identically transcribed on the record of the respondent as well. In our considered opinion, the minor discrepancies in the language employed by the respondent, and as it stands reflected in the reasons provided to the petitioner, and that which exists on the record, would clearly not justify us interfering with the impugned notice and the order impugned for reasons which follow. As would be evident from a perusal of the reasons which were supplied to the petitioner, there is a clear and unequivocal expression of opinion of the AO with respect to the material on the basis of which reassessment was sought to be commenced. The proforma also alludes to the same material and record.
There is thus no variation or difference in the foundational material on the basis of which the AO came to form the opinion that income has likely to have escaped assessment. What needs to be emphasized while dealing with challenges like the present is that we would not countenance two separate and distinct set of reasons being maintained by the respondent for commencement of reassessment. The reasons which are conveyed to the assessee must be the same as those which exist on the record. A minor variation in the language in which that information is conveyed to the assessee would not constitute a justifiable ground to interfere with the reassessment power. Decided against assessee.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1018
Substantial question of law to be made out u/s 260A or not? - Undisclosed income surrendered during the Search and Seizure action - to be taxed at normal rate or tax rate stipulated u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act - ITAT confirming the Order of CIT(A) that the undisclosed income surrendered during the Search and Seizure action, is liable to be taxed at normal rate instead of the tax rate stipulated under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act? - HELD THAT:- From a bare reading of the Section, it is apparent that an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Tribunal lies only when a substantial question of law is involved, and where the High Court comes to the conclusion that a substantial question of law arises from the said order, it is mandatory that such question(s) must be formulated. The expression "substantial question of law" is not defined in the Act. Nevertheless, it has acquired a definite connotation through various judicial pronouncements.
A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in appreciating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread. See MADAN LAL VERSUS GOPI (MST.) & ANR [1980 (8) TMI 204 - SUPREME COURT], WB. ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION [2002 (10) TMI 772 - SUPREME COURT] and METROARK LTD. [2004 (1) TMI 397 - SUPREME COURT]
Thus in the instant case no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal as the appellant has raised all the question of facts and have disputed the fact findings of the ITAT in the garb of substantial questions of law which is not permitted by the statute itself.
This Court refrains from entertaining this appeal as there is no perversity in the order passed by the ITAT since the ITAT has dealt with all the grounds raised by the appellant in the order impugned and has passed a well reasoned and speaking order taking into consideration all the material available on record.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1017
Revisional jurisdiction u/s 264 - Application u/s 264 rejected as intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act is not an order amenable to revisional jurisdiction u/s 264 - Computation of Capital Gains - Exclusion of the portion of the sale consideration that was never received - HELD THAT:- Since we have held in Diwaker Tripathi [2023 (9) TMI 159 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] that the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 264 of the Act, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23rd March 2016 passed by Respondent No. 1.
atter is remanded to Respondent No. 1 to pass a fresh order on the application of Petitioner on the basis that the capital gains on the transfer of shares of the company should be computed after reducing proportionate amount withdrawn from the escrow account from the full value of consideration and allow the refund of additional tax paid with interest. Unless there is any other claim of Revenue against Petitioner that would permit Revenue to legally adjust the refund amount, the refund with interest shall be paid over within two weeks of passing the assessment order. The order shall be passed within six weeks from the date this order is being uploaded, after giving a personal hearing to Petitioner, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast seven working days in advance.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1016
Nature of receipt - Addition on account of notional sales tax - treated as revenue receipt by the A.O - HELD THAT:- The issue is covered by the order of the Apex Court in GUJARAT ALKALIES AND CHEMICALS LTD. [2023 (6) TMI 1046 - SC ORDER], INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORPORATION LTD. [2016 (9) TMI 110 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - No substantial question of law arise.
Disallowance u/s 14A - Tribunal restricting the expenses u/s. 14A at 0.50% of the exempt income as against disallowance of Rs. 87.85 made by the A.O - HELD THAT:- AO has not given any reasons as to why he was not satisfied with the disallowance of Rs. 3.88 crores made by assessee and, therefore, cannot be faulted for restricting the expenses under Section 14A disallowing at 5% of the exempted income.
TP Adjustment - addition of guarantee commission - Tribunal restricting the guarantee commission to 0.38% of the guaranteed amount as against at 2.90%, as determined by the A.O - HELD THAT:- TPO has not given any reasons why according to him the guarantee amount should be 2.90% and not 3.8%. Therefore, we do not find any error finding arrived at by the ITAT.
Interest referable to interest free loans and advances to LIBOR - Tribunal restricting the interest referable to interest free loans and advances to LIBOR +1.50% as against at 7.5%, as determined by the A.O. on the basis of RBI Circular - HELD THAT:- Counsels agreed that this question requires to be admitted.
Depreciation directing to adopt the WDV of the assets as on 01.04.2007 - HELD THAT:- This question raises an issue which is merely consequential to the final decisions of the earlier years. Assessee is entitled to depreciation on the opening WDV and the additions made to such WDV during the year. The opening WDV is the amount of the closing WDV of the earlier year as finally determined. In this Question, the Revenue is seeking to reduce the value of the opening WDV on the basis of the stand taken by the Revenue in the earlier years. As the issue raised in this question is only consequential and effect will have to be given to the final decision in the earlier years, there is no question of law which arises for consideration in this year.
Deduction u/s 80IA - rate to be adopted for determining the profit of the captive power generation unit which is eligible for deduction - Assessee contends that the rate at which electricity is supplied to the customer should be considered whereas the Revenue contends that profit should be restricted to 16% of the investment or capital base - HELD THAT:- This issue is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of this Court in the assessee's own case in the earlier assessment year being Question No. C in M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019 (2) TMI 178 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as held market value of the power supplied to the Steel-Division should be computed considering the rate of power to a consumer in the open market and it should not be compared with the rate of power when it is sold to a supplier as this is not the rate for which a consumer or the Steel Division could have purchased power in the open market. The rate of power to a supplier is not the market rate to a consumer in the open market.AO committed an illegality in computing the market value by taking into account the rate charged to a supplier: it should have been compared with the market value of power supplied to a consumer.
The Apex court in the case of CIT v Jindal Steel & Power Limited [2023 (12) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT] as affirmed the aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court in the assessee's own case. Further, it is not the case of the Revenue that insertion of Section 80A(6) of the Act has made any change in law as the AO in coming to its conclusion has himself relied on the assessment order for the earlier years. For the reasons given in the said judgment, there is no question of law which arises for consideration.
Appeal is admitted on the following question of law :
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Hon'ble Tribunal was right in restricting the interest referable to interest free loans and advances to LIBOR +1.50% as against at 7.5%, as determined by the A.O. on the basis of RBI Circular?
-
2024 (3) TMI 1015
Addition u/s 68 - bogus share application/allotment money - genuineness of the share capital could not be established - ITAT deleted addition - HELD THAT:- Tribunal affirmed the order passed by the CIT(A) by recording a factual finding that the three necessary ingredients, namely, identity, creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of the transaction as provided u/s 68 of the Act have been established and there was no ground to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A) - No question of law much less substantial question of law is arising for consideration in this appeal.
............
|
9911796707
