|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1528 Records
-
2022 (6) TMI 1468
Disallowance u/s 14A in course of the assessment undertaken under Section 153A - disallowance made under Section 14A while computing of Book Profit under Section 115JB - HELD THAT:-The present Tax Appeal is Admitted on the following substantial questions of law.
(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, could it not be said that the Appellate Tribunal committed an error in deleting the additions made on the count of fictitious losses from National Multi Commodity Exchange trading and also the disallowance under Section 14A in course of the assessment undertaken u/s 153A more particularly having regard to the import purport and the language of the said provision, holding that the additions have to be confined to the incriminating material found during the course of search u/s 132(1) even though there is no stipulation of the Section 153A and notwithstanding that there was no assessment u/s143(3) despite the fact that return was processed u/s 143(1) and no scrutiny proceedings were undertaken u/s 143(3) of the Act?
(ii) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Appellate Tribunal has erred in holding that disallowance under Section 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assesses?
(iii) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Appellate Tribunal was justified in excluding the disallowance made under Section 14A while computing of Book Profit under Section 115JB ignoring the clause (f) of Explanation1 to Section 115JB(2)?
(iv) Whether Appellate Tribunal committed an error in deleting the additions in respect of the allowance of losses taken from M/s. Mari Gold Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata without appreciating the entire set of facts attended to the said aspect, whether the transaction evidenced that it was in the nature of accommodation entry and whether the Tribunal acted perverse on facts on that count?
-
2022 (6) TMI 1467
Validity of reopening assessment - order passed u/s 148A(d) pursuant to the notice u/s 148A(b) challenged on the ground of alleged violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- As the impugned order u/s 148A(d) has been passed after compliance of all the formalities required under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and there is no procedural irregularity or violation of principles of natural justice.
It appears from record that, first, notice was issued u/s 148A(b) and in response to the same, the petitioner has filed its objection and thereafter the Assessing Officer concerned has passed order u/s 148A of the Act after considering the objection of the petitioner by giving reason and making elaborate discussion.
This Court in exercise of its Constitutional writ jurisdiction cannot act as an Appellate Authority over the impugned order passed u/s 148A(d) when there is no procedural irregularity or violation of principles of natural justice or the Officer has not acted contrary to any provision of the Statute and reasoning and findings given by the AO in his order u/s 148A(d) should not be substituted by a writ Court. WP dismissed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1466
Assessment against company dissolved/insolvent - proceedings initiated against the corporate debtor/assessee company including income tax proceedings and recovery of demand or giving effect of any order - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- In the light of the above order by Hon’ble NCLT in the assessee’s own case for its CIRP as per Rule 4 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules 2016, no proceedings can continue against the corporate debtor i.e. the assessee.
In view of this and drawing further force from the order of coordinate bench in the case of Real Steps Ltd. [2021 (7) TMI 1445 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] all these nine appeals before this Tribunal filed by the assessee/Department are dismissed as infructuous. However, ld. AO is at liberty to make an application for reinstitution of these appeals after the resolution process ends in IBC 2016. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee and the Department (totaling nine in numbers) are dismissed as infructuous.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1465
Assessment against company dissolved/insolvent - Income tax dues - priority to debts to be discharged - Scope of section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- As against the respondent company an application for liquidation has been filed before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench and by order ]the application filed by Chaitanya Alloys Private Limited, the operational creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has been admitted and a moratorium as provided under Section 14 of the Code has been ordered. There are other directions issued by the NCLT as well.
Thus, in the light of the statutory provision and in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT- Vs. -Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited [2018 (8) TMI 1775 - SC ORDER] and also in the light of the overriding provisions of the Code in terms of Section 238 of the Act, the revenue cannot pursue the appeal.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1464
Deduction u/s 80P - Claim denied as assessee did not file the return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 - as contended that since the assessee did not file return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18, there was no question of invoking the provision of section 80A(5) - HELD THAT:- Section 80A(5) of the Act is applicable only when a return of income is filed by an assessee and a deduction under Chapter VI “A” of the Act, is not claimed in such return of income. It will not apply to a case where no return of income is filed. The provisions of section 80AC of the Act, as we have already seen, contemplates denial of deduction in respect of certain provisions of Chapter VI “A” of the Act, if a return of income is not filed by an assessee. Those provisions, as rightly contended by assessee, do not apply to the claim for deduction under section 80P - Revenue authorities were not justified in not entertaining the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80P of the Act as made by the assessee.
Since neither the AO nor the CIT(A) have examined the other conditions for allowing deduction under section 80P of the Act, we deem it fit and proper to remand the issue of the assessee’s eligibility to claim deduction u/s 80P in the sense with regard to the quantum of deduction and also with regard to the other conditions for allowing deduction u/s 80P for examining afresh by the AO. Allow the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1463
Maintainability of petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. at the hands of a power of attorney holder of an accused - suppression of material facts or not - offences alleged meet their ingredients or not.
Whether the subject writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable at the hands of a power of attorney holder of an accused? - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the petitioners are presently residing at United Kingdom and the petition is presented by one Mr. Gautam Giri on the strength of a power of attorney executed by the petitioners on 14-12-2021 at Bangalore. The power of attorney appended to the petition is executed at Bangalore, but signed by the executants before the Notary at London. There is no averment in the entire petition that the said power of attorney holder is aware of the facts of the case. There being no averment to the effect that the power of attorney holder has full knowledge of what is being filed and the reason for presenting the petition by the said power of attorney holder, notwithstanding the fact that it is filed invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court as an amalgam to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the writ petition would not become maintainable. The Constitutional Courts have consistently taken a view that the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by a power of attorney holder is not maintainable.
The High Court of Delhi in a Judgment rendered in the case of AMRINDER SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [2022 (1) TMI 1421 - DELHI HIGH COURT] addresses the very issue as it was argued therein that the petition filed under Article 227 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was not maintainable. The High Court of Delhi following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.C. MATHAI AND ANOTHER v. THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM [1999 (3) TMI 635 - SUPREME COURT], clearly holds that the petition filed through Special Power of Attorney Holder is per se not maintainable. Therefore, no permission can be granted to the power of attorney holder to present the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or otherwise. The challenge to the proceedings seeking annulment of FIR was also held not maintainable.
On a coalesce of the judgment so rendered by the Constitutional Courts, what can be unmistakably gathered is that the power of attorney holder of an accused cannot maintain a petition be it under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present petition filed by the power of attorney holder of the accused, without seeking any permission at the hands of this Court, and without even narrating in the petition that he is personally aware of the facts of the case, the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is per se not maintainable, as the accused cannot be represented by a power of attorney holder and thus, maintain the subject petition.
Whether the writ petition suffers from suppression of material facts entailing dismissal of the petition? - HELD THAT:- The petitioner No. 1 has filed an affidavit of declaration which is dated 29-03-2022 for the first time stating that in view of travel restrictions due to COVID-19 the power of attorney was handed over to a family friend Mr. Gautam Giri and has also sought to defend the allegations made in the complaint. But there is no whisper about the afore-narrated facts and events that have been suppressed by the petitioners while filing the present petition. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the petitioners are guilty of approaching this Court with unclean hands and such petitions should be thrown to the winds by imposition of exemplary costs. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioners are guilty of misleading the Court, the petition is to be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merit of the claim.
The case at hand is to meet its dismissal with imposition of exemplary costs, as the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with unclean hands.
The first and second question having been answered in the negative against the petitioners, the other point with regard to merits of the matter need not be gone into, as both the points act as a threshold bar for entertaining the petition and the doors of this Court cannot be considered to be open or even ajar to the petitioners, but they are closed. Therefore, third question is not answered.
Writ Petition is dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid by the petitioners to the High Court Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court and file an acknowledgment to that effect before the Registry of this Court.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1462
TP Adjustment - MAM determination - determination of ALP of an international transaction between the assessee and its Associate Enterprises (AE) u/s 92 - application of residual PSM OR TNMM - HELD THAT:- The facts in the present asst. year are identical with issue covered by the decision of coordinate bench in the assessee’s own case in [2020 (3) TMI 947 - ITAT BANGALORE] for the assessment year 2013-14 thus we set aside the question of determination of ALP to the TPO afresh applying TNMM as the most appropriate method as was done in Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 & 2015-16 in the order referred to above. Needless to say the assessee shall be given reasonable opportunity of hearing. Assessee does not make any unique contribution to the transaction, hence PSM in this case cannot be applied.
Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1461
Scope of Advance Ruling - Service recipient, M/s. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited is a Government Entity or not - clause (zfa) of para 2 of Notification No. 12/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended by Notification No. 32/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 13.10.2017 - Operation and Maintenance of identified 33/11 KV Grid Sub-Stations to Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited are wholly exempt vide serial number 3 of Notification No. 12/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 [as amended] or not - HELD THAT:- The words "or a Governmental authority or a Government Entity" has been omitted at serial number 3, in column (3), in the heading "Description of Services" in the said Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated the 28th June, 2017 vide aforesaid Notification No. 16/2021-Central Tax (Rate) dated 18.11.2021 which resulted as withdrawn of exemption from tax from 01.01.2022. Thus, as on date there is no exemption is applicable on Pure services (excluding works contract service or other composite supplies involving supply of any goods) provided to the Government Entity by way of any activity in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under article 243G of the Constitution. Hence, applicant is not eligible to avail the said exemption from tax.
The scope of the ruling for Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) is limited to the transactions being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken. In the instant case, the application seeking advance ruling was filed on 16.11.2021 before the RAAR with respect to supplies undertaken for the period from 01.11.2019 to 30.04.2021. Hence, the case is out of the purview of the Advance Ruling.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1460
Disallowance u/s 35(2AB) - research and development expenditure - assessee had itself admitted that there was a difference in the claim of Research & Development expenditure and that the assessee had claimed excess deduction u/s. 35 (2AB) - As per CIT contentions put forth by the appellant were not disposed off by the AO, thus AO is directed to restrict the disallowance after necessary verification as specifically brought out in the contentions of the appellant - HELD THAT:- AR has filed the working of disallowance U/sec. 35(2AB) of the Act which explains the nature of expenditure, actual expenses debited to profit &loss account, claim made in the return of income and the assessee claim before the DSIR and the revised claim. The workings tally with the net disallowance restriction directed by the CIT(A) to A.O. DR could not controvert the above findings of restoration to the file of A.O. and we do not find merit in this ground of appeal of the revenue and is dismissed.
Depreciation on computer software - HELD THAT:- ITAT in the Assessee own case in A.Y. 2010-11 [2020 (1) TMI 1200 - ITAT MUMBAI] has observed that the computer software is eligible for depreciation @60%. We find there is nothing remains in the ground of appeal as it become in fructuous due to grant of higher depreciation on software and the ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Grant of depreciation on assets transfer in the merger and the said companies have not claimed depreciation on the assets held by them - HELD THAT:- We find the Hon’ble Tribunal In [2020 (1) TMI 1200 - ITAT MUMBAI] has considered the facts, provisions of the Act and judicial decisions and directed the A.O. to allow the depreciation. In the present case the facts are identical and CIT(A) has relied on the earlier years decision and granted the relief. We up held the same as decided in favour of the assessee.
Addition u/s 145A of the Act with respect to modvat credit - HELD THAT:- The Honble Tribunal in [2021 (10) TMI 505 - ITAT MUMBAI] as perused Tax Audit report of the assessee and find that it is the claim of the assessee that the impact of grossing up of tax, duty, cess etc. by restating the values of purchases and inventories by inter alia including the effect of CENVAT credit will be Nil, subject to Sec. 43B that the duty, taxes, cess etc. is paid before the "due date" of filing of the return of income. As the ld. D.R had submitted that the aforesaid working of the assessee would require to be verified, we therefore, in all fairness restore the matter to the file of the A.O for readjudication.
Allowance of consultancy charges as revenue expenditure and allow deduction u/s 35DD - HELD THAT:- We find that the similar issue has been decided in the assessee favour by the Honble Tribunal in [2021 (10) TMI 505 - ITAT MUMBAI] for A.Y.2003-04 dated 510-2021 as held that it is a clear case of simple professional services rendered by Accenture to the assessee which at any cost cannot be considered as a capital in nature. We find that the said expenditure has to be considered as wholly and exclusively as deduction u/s. 37(1) - We hold that the provisions of Section 35DD of the Act as alleged by the ld. CIT(A) cannot be made applicable in the instant case as admittedly the same only refers to expenses incurred pursuant to amalgamation. Hence, we direct the ld. AO to grant deduction of the said expenditure u/s. 37(1) - Decided in favour of assessee.
Correct head of income - Treating rental income from RP House and centre point under the head IFHP OR IFOS - HELD THAT:- We find the Honble Tribunal [2021 (10) TMI 505 - ITAT MUMBA] has held that the transfer of ownership has to be completed over a period of 4 years and therefore the assessee continues to remain the owner of part property of the RP House. Further it was decided that the income from RP House and Centre Point is assessable as Income From House Property.
CIT(A) has considered the factual aspects and made a reasonable observations and granted the relief. We find the revenue could controvert on the findings of the CIT(A) on this disputed issue. Accordingly, we follow the judicial precedence of ratio of the ITAT decision and dismiss the ground of appeal of the revenue.
Deduction of eligible profits u/s 80HHC of the Act while calculating the book profits u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- We find that in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y 2003-04, the Hon’ble Tribunal has allowed the assessee’s ground of appeal in [2021 (10) TMI 505 - ITAT MUMBA] as held that deduction u/s. 80HHE had to be worked out on the basis of adjusted book profit u/s. 115JA of the Act and not on the basis of profits computed under regular provisions of law applicable to computation of profits and gains of business. - Decided against revenue.
Allowance of set off of losses /depreciation of tools division on account of demerger - HELD THAT:- As relying on own case [2021 (10) TMI 505 - ITAT MUMBAI] to hold that the ld. CIT(A) had rightly directed the ld. AO to allow set off of losses of amalgamating company in the hands of the assessee - Decided against revenue.
Allow depreciation on computer software @ 60% rate after due verification and recomputed the computer and computer software as on block &WDV and allow ground of appeal for statistical purpose.
Disallowance of interest on loan taken for purchase of a capital asset(Shares of RPIL) - AR submits that if the barrowed funds are used for investment in shares held for controlling interest, interest is allowable U/sec 36(1)(iii) of the Act and such expenditure is incurred out of commercial expediency - HELD THAT:- We find the CIT(A) has followed the assessee own case for A.Y.2002-03 &2003-04 and confirmed the disallowance of interest. Further on appeal by the assessee to the Honble Tribunal, for both the assessment years ITAT has decided in favour of the assessee as per the observations discussed in the above paragraphs. The Ld.DR has accepted the decisions of the Honble Tribunal. Accordingly, we set aside the decision of the CIT(A) on this disputed issue and direct the assessing officer to delete the disallowance of interest and allow the ground of appeal.
Capital gains on sale of RP house to be taxed over 4 years.
Grant the depreciation on the block of building - HELD THAT:- As decided in [2021 (10) TMI 505 - ITAT MUMBAI] block of building continued, depreciation thereon should be eligible to the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the ld. AO to grant depreciation.
Nature of receipts - treatment of sales tax deferral loan - revenue receipt or capital receipt - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that the Assessing officer should also be provided an opportunity to verify and examine the facts in the additional ground raised by the assessee. Hence to meet the ends of justice with out going in to merits of the case restore this disputed issue for limited purpose to the file of the Assessing officer to decide on merits and allow the ground of appeal for statistical purposes.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1459
Exemption u/s 10(23C) denied - AO observed that the total receipts of assessee were approximately Rs. 109 crores, out of which the grant received from Govt. was just Rs. 3.90 crores, thus exemption disallowed since the assessee does not meet the condition of “wholly or substantially financed by the Govt.” as prescribed in section 10(23C)(iiiab) - as submitted assessee is a University established under M.P. Vishwavidhalaya Adhiniyam,1973, an Act of the State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, established to provide education, supervision and maintenance to various colleges and educational institutions as per regulations of the Govt. and to establish, maintain and manage colleges, teaching departments, school of studies, center of studies, to institute degree diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions, etc.
AO concluded that the receipts from government-grant are much less and therefore the assessee does not satisfy the requirement of “substantially financed by Govt.” - HELD THAT:- The component of government-grant received by the assessee is just 3.50% of the total receipts which is so less that by no stretch of understanding, the assessee can be said to be “substantially financed by the Govt”.
Also looking at submission of Ld. AR that out of the total receipt of Rs. 109 crore, there is a receipt of examination fee of Rs. 58 crore from affiliated institutions and colleges who had in turn received grants from the Govt. as also from certain categories of students who have received grants and scholarships from the Govt. The Ld. AR submitted that the receipt of Rs. 58 crore should also be considered as receipt from Govt. We are afraid to accept this argument of Ld. AO. If the affiliated colleges / institutions / students have received grant or scholarship from Govt., it is those colleges / institutions / students who have been financed by the Govt. and not the assessee. Even otherwise although the Ld. AR has raised this point but there is no material or evidence produced before us to prove that such state of affairs actually exist. Therefore, we are not impressed by this argument of Ld. AR. Thus, assessee is not substantially financed by the Govt. and therefore not entitled to exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab).
Alternative claim of exemption u/s 11 / 12 demanded by the assessee - can we entertain this new claim made by assessee for the first time before us? - HELD THAT:- A fresh claim before appellate authorities is not barred. It is constantly held in several decisions that a legal claim can be made by the assessee before appellate authorities even if the same was not claimed during assessment proceedings. We also observe that the provisions of section 11 / 12 grant exemption to the assessee and such exemption, if not allowed, would result in illegal collection of tax from the assessee, which is never an objective of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In view of this position of law, we do not find any difficulty in accepting the alternative claim of assessee to allow exemption u/s 11 / 12. However, the claim of exemption u/s 11 / 12 involves a different type of working based on application and accumulation of income. Therefore, we feel that it would be more appropriate to refer this matter back to Ld. AO who shall give an opportunity to the assessee to provide the necessary information for computation of exemption u/s 11 / 12.
Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1458
Validity of assessment order framed by non-jurisdictional officer - competent officer to proceed with the assessment by way of issue of notice u/s 143(2) - when notice u/s 143(2) was issued by an officer who did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment - as submitted that the jurisdiction to pass the assessment order in this case laid with the ACIT/DCIT as the income declared by the assessee was more than Rs. 20 lacs
HELD THAT: - Jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities may be fixed not only in respect of territorial area but also having regard to a person or classes of persons and income or classes of income also. Therefore, the CBDT having regard to the income as per return has fixed the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officers.
Thus in this case, the competent officer to proceed with the assessment by way of issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was DCIT/ACIT, whereas, the notice u/s 143(2) has been issued by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata who did not have any jurisdiction to issue the aforesaid notice.
As has been held by the various courts of the country including the Apex Court, the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) by the concerned Assessing Officer of a competent jurisdiction is mandatory to assume jurisdiction to proceed to frame assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. The identical issue also came into consideration in the case of Bhagyalaxmi Conclave (P) Ltd. v. DCIT [2021 (2) TMI 181 - ITAT KOLKATA] wherein the Tribunal further relying upon various other decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and held that when the notice u/s 143(2) was issued by an officer who did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment and the assessment was framed by the other officer who did not issue the notice u/s 143(2) before proceeding to frame the assessment, then such an assessment order was bad in law.
Thus assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (ACIT) was bad in law for want of issuance of notice u/s 143(2). Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1457
Approval for Scheme of Amalgamation - Sections 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- After analysing the Scheme in detail, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the scheme as contemplated amongst the petitioner companies seems to be prima fade beneficial to the Company and will not be in any way detrimental to the interest of the shareholders of the Company. In view of the absence of any other objections having been placed on record before this Tribunal and since all the requisite statutory compliances having been fulfilled, this Tribunal sanctions the Scheme of Arrangement appended as Annexure "D" with the Company Petition as well as the prayer made therein.
The Company Petition stands allowed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1456
Benefit of scheme under SPLDRS - failure to deposit the money because of technical glitches in the system of the department - HELD THAT:- Without going into the truthfulness and verification of such allegation, this writ petition is not entertained for the reason that the said scheme has already expired long back and it is the authority concerned who can only consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law.
Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition except requesting the authority concerned to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner being Annexure P-5 to the writ petition in accordance with law within the reasonable time and preferably within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1455
Disallowance u/s 37(1) - expenditure on account of group management fee paid to associate enterprises - no evidences regarding actual occurrence of the management service fees for which the foreign parent company has charged - HELD THAT:- What can be concluded is that assessee has failed to produce any cogent evidence before the Ld. AO or Ld. First Appellate Authority to indicate that the expenditure incurred was for the purposes of the business.
Assessee company is a advertising agency in Gurgaon and engaged in providing advertising communication and marketing solutions to its clients both domestic and international. The company is closely held company with 99.76% of the shares being held by the Holding Company . Thus, certainly the assessee must be in possession of quite relevant commercial and accounting documents which may indicate that there was valid expenditure on as many as ten heads, which were claimed to be the areas of expert services. However, no evidence to that effect was led.
AO has rightly relied the judgment of Cushman and Wakefield Indian (P.) Ltd. [2014 (5) TMI 897 - DELHI HIGH COURT] to hold that in spite of the case of assessee being covered by transfer pricing provision that does not restrict or in any way by pass the functions of the TPO when AO goes for determining u/s 37(1) of the Act, that whether the business expenditure claimed is expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business or not. Decided against assessee.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1454
Seeking directions to the Revenue to implement the Final Order dated 25 January 2018 passed by this Tribunal in its favour - HELD THAT:- It is found from the records and from the Final Order, that the refund applications covering various periods were filed and were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and such rejections were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). By the Final Order dated 25 January 2018 held that the appellant was entitled to the refund claimed in these applications and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. It was incumbent upon the Revenue to implement the Final Order and give the refund. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner was wrong in stating that again a Refund Application must be filed within one year of the Final Order. If he had read the Final Order even once, it would have been clear to him that the Refund applications were filed long ago under Section 11B and it was their rejection which was the subject matter of the Final Order.
It is found appropriate to direct the Principal Chief Commissioner Of Chief Commissioner of Central Goods & Services Tax (Delhi Zone) C.R. BUILDING, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110109 in whose jurisdiction all the divisions and Commissionerates of the Zone fall to direct the appropriate officer to sanction the refund along with appropriate interest forthwith.
Application allowed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1453
Application for modification of the order dated 12 September, 2019 passed by the Tribunal disposing of the appeals - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that an Appeal has been filed before the Allahabad High Court against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. This apart, this application has been moved after a period of almost two and a half years from the date of passing of the order. Not only that, the Tribunal has passed several orders on Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Appellant under Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - The present application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Rectification of mistake - HELD THAT:- An application for Rectification of Mistake can be moved within six months from the date of order as is contemplated under Section 129B of the Customs Act. The application, therefore, cannot be entertained. It is, accordingly, rejected.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1452
Assessment u/s 153A - bogus purchases - whether ‘satisfaction’ has not been recorded by AO of the searched person and when there was no incriminating document was found? - books of accounts of the company were rejected u/s 145(2) and a substantive addition was made in the hands of M/s. Orient Craft Ltd. and a Protective Assessment was made in the hands of assessee - addition @ 5% on account of alleged commission/brokerage as business income - HELD THAT:- Appreciating the matter on record it can be observed that in ITAT order [2021 (9) TMI 1408 - ITAT DELHI] dated 24.09.2021 in ITA No. 3312/Del/2019 for assessment year 2015- 16 and [2021 (10) TMI 86 - ITAT DELHI] ITA No. 3311/Del./2019 for assessment year 2014-15 the substantive additions in the hands of M/s. Orient Craft Ltd. have been deleted.
It can be observed that as been held that M/s. Orient Craft Ltd. has proved that the material was purchased from vendors involved and payments have been made through banking channel. It was further held that the voluminous documentary evidences filed by M/s. Orient Craft Ltd. clearly established the genuineness of purchase of fabric from the present assessee / appellant.
That being so there is no force in the contention of the Ld. DR that if substantive additions are deleted then as per orders of ld. CIT(A) the protective assessment in the hands of present assessee / appellant will still revive. In fact the findings arrived by the Tribunal in case of M/s. Orient Craft Ltd. are to the effect that the purchases made from the present assessee were genuine therefore, the Bench is of firm view that protective additions in the hands of the assessee/ appellant was never sustainable.
In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances the order of Ld. CIT(A) making additions on account of alleged commission / brokerage as business income is not sustainable.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1451
Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - onus to prove - share subscription monies received by the assessee alleging that the source of source companies were name lenders having no creditworthiness and the Directors of such companies had not attended the summons - HELD THAT:- The phraseology of Section 68 of the Act is clear. The Legislature has laid down that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In this case, the Legislative mandate is not in terms of the word 'shall' be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. The Supreme Court while interpreting similar phraseology used in Section 69 of the Act has held that in creating the legal fiction, the phraseology used therein employs the word "may" and not "shall". Thus, the un-satisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as also held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1997 (1) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT]
Onus to prove - Although the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act remained unserved/non-complied, the assessee had furnished all documentary evidences including copies of confirmations, PAN Card, IT Acknowledgement, financial statements and bank statements of all these shareholders. Having regard to these documents and taking into account the judgments rendered in the cases of Ami Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd. [2020 (2) TMI 269 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (3) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT] the Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus of establishing the identity of the investors, proving their creditworthiness and establishing the genuineness of the transactions - thus we thus hold that the assessee had discharged the burden cast upon it under the substantive Section 68 of the Act.
Whether the additional burden cast upon the assessee under proviso to Section 68 of the Act was discharged or not? - CIT(A) had examined the details and documents concerning RGIL and thereafter arrived at a conclusion that the source of source viz., RGIL was an actual and existing company which was engaged in active business of import and export having substantial turnover and overdraft facilities, packing credit etc. from the Bank. Hence, with regard to the amounts mentioned in Column (B) above, the Ld. CIT(A) found that the ‘source of source’ of this share capital originated from the coffers of RGIL which had paid these amounts to the shareholders from its Overdraft/Packing Credit Accounts or proceeds received from sale of goods or maturity of fixed deposits; and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) held that these amounts could not be treated as unexplained monies of the assessee company which we concur on the basis of the uncontroverted facts as noted by Ld. CIT(A). Before us, the Ld. CIT-DR was unable to point out any infirmity in these findings of facts as decided by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting addition made u/s 68 Partly.
Balance amount mentioned in Column (C) of the above Table, the Ld. CIT(A) had held that the bodies corporate from whom the shareholders had received monies, out of which they had subscribed to the share capital of the assessee, were paper companies engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries - The general yardstick adopted by the Ld. CIT(A) across all the twelve (12) shareholders mentioned in Column (C) above was that, the source of source of the remaining sum also received from two group entities did not emanate from the coffers of RGIL but was received from unrelated bodies corporate, and therefore he treated it to be bogus, alleging the source of source to be paper companies is found to be on erroneous assumption/basis in as much as it is found to be not based on any material or evidence. As we have noted earlier in Paras 15(i) to (xvi) above, the documents placed on record evidenced the “source of source” of the investment made by the share subscribers in the assessee’s share capital viz., the PAN, Certificate of Incorporation, bank statements of the ‘source of source’ etc. It is thus noted that source of money from which these share subscribers could subscribe in assessee was clearly discernible. AR has therefore rightly pointed out that the assessee had discharged its initial burden of substantiating the “source of source” of funds, and no specific infirmity had been pointed out therein by the lower authorities. At the time of hearing, even the Ld. CIT-DR was unable to pin-point any defect in these evidences placed on record in support of source of source of funds in the paper book.
After the assessee had discharged its burden by furnishing the above documents in support of the source of source of funds, in compliance with proviso to Section 68 of the Act, then the onus of disproving or finding defects in these documents shifted to the Revenue. It was then the duty of the Revenue to bring on record cogent material/evidence, which would show that the source of source of funds was unreliable or not genuine, which we find has not been done by them.
CIT(A) could not have abdicated from his duty, if he harbored a suspicion that, what was apparent was not real. It is further noted that the Ld. CIT(A) was unable to point out any defect in the documents furnished by the assessee to discharge the burden to prove the “source of source” as required as per proviso to Section 68 of the Act and that of the shareholders. Therefore, his conclusion that the source of source of funds qua Rs. 6,22,05,000/- were unexplained or represented unaccounted monies of the assessee cannot be sustained
Thus unable to find any fault in the conduct of the assessee, who had not only discharged its burden of substantiating the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the shareholders, but also the source of source of funds in accordance with proviso to Section 68 of the Act. Thereafter, it was for the Revenue to bring on record cogent/credible evidence to show that the evidences/material furnished by assessee in support of nature & source and even the source of source of funds of share subscribers were defective/colourable. We however note that the lower authorities failed to undertake any such exercise, except for casting aspirations’ by airing their suspicion based on conjectures and surmises. Hence, as the source of source, is found to be flowing through regular banking channel from various remittances by corporate entities in the course of their business dealings, the additional burden laid upon the assessee/share-subscribers under the proviso to section 68 of the Act is held to have been discharged/satisfied. Decided in favour of assessee.
Addition u/s 56(2)(viib) - valuation methodology - assessee had furnished a valuation report from a Chartered Accountant, as per which value per share was Rs. 51,135/- and as per assessee since the premium of Rs. 49,900/- was lower than the FMV, no addition was warranted u/s 56(2)(viib) - whether the AO could have legally rejected the valuation methodology followed by the assessee and changed it to some other method? - HELD THAT:- The option to choose the valuation method is with the issuer company and there is no enabling provision empowering the AO to reject and change the valuation method adopted by a company. Having held so, it is necessary to clarify that the AO however can indeed verify the manner of application of the valuation method pursued by the issuer company, and point out any mistakes, errors or infirmities therein. In the present case at hand, the Ld. CIT-DR was unable to point out any mistake in the manner of application of valuation method followed by the Chartered Accountant. We thus countenance the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in disagreeing with the action of the AO and upholding the valuation method followed by the assessee and thereby deleting the protective addition made by the AO u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act. Where the assessee adopts a certain valuation methodology under the Act and rules thereunder, the AO cannot subsequently change the valuation method adopted by the assessee. See Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [2018 (3) TMI 530 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
Advances/deposits received by the assessee - The facts available on record shows that, the first source of the entire deposits/advances had been established in as much as the identity of the lenders, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction was proved by the assessee as per the requirement of law as discussed. Hence, if the Ld. CIT(A) doubted the respective sources of these creditors [i.e. to extent of Rs. 79,00,000/-], then the correct course of action was to proceed against the creditors rather than the assessee because the assessee has discharged the burden as required by law [ section 68 of the Act] and the assessee cannot be expected to do more than what the law prescribed -the assessee was not required as per the law in force at that time, to explain the source of monies of the creditors. Consequently, the basis on which the addition was sustained partly u/s 68 of the Act by Ld. CIT(A) is held to be unsustainable.
As decided in Rohini Builders [2001 (3) TMI 9 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein the Court has held that onus of the assessee (in whose books of account credit appears) stands fully discharged if the identity of the creditor is established and actual receipt of money from such creditor is proved. In case, the Assessing Officer is dissatisfied about the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts of the creditors, the proper course would be to assess such credit in the hands of the creditor (after making due enquiries from such creditor).
When when full particulars, inclusive of the confirmation with name, address, PAN, IT returns, balance sheet & profit and loss account in respect of all the lenders were furnished and that it has been found that the loans were received through cheques then the AO was not justified in making addition u/s 68 - See Apex Therm Packaging (P) Ltd. [2013 (12) TMI 1541 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]
We are of the considered view that the addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act was untenable both in law and on facts. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1450
Faceless appeals procedures - Validity of order passed by the National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC) with no oppourtnity provided to present case - whether NFAC has erred in not granting an opportunity to the appellant bank to present the case through the video conferencing as specified under the Faceless Appeals Scheme 2020, provided u/s 250 (6B) of the Income Tax Act? - HELD THAT:- In the Hon'ble Supreme Court's five-judge constitutional bench's landmark judgment, in the case of CIT v. Vatika Townships Pvt Ltd. [2014 (9) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT] the legal position in this regard has been very succinctly summed up by observing that "(i)f a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect"
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "This (the foregoing analysis) exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective", that, "In Government of India & Ors. v. Indian Tobacco Association [2005 (8) TMI 113 - SUPREME COURT] the doctrine of fairness was held to be a relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation" and that "The same doctrine of fairness, to hold that a statute was retrospective in nature, was applied in the case of Vijay v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2006 (7) TMI 648 - SUPREME COURT] - It was held that where a law is enacted for the benefit of the community as a whole, even in the absence of a provision the statute may be held to be retrospective in nature." Their Lordships also noted that this retrospectively being attached to benefit the persons, is in sharp contrast with the provision imposing some burden or liability where the presumption attaches towards prospectivity. What logically follows from the law so settled by a constitutional bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is that when an opportunity of presenting the case, through the video conferring in the faceless appeal proceedings, is now available to every taxpayer, on-demand, the same must also be held to be admissible in the proceedings, if so demanded by the assessee, in the old rules as well.
Thus we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the first appellate authority after giving an opportunity for a personal hearing, in terms of rule 12 of the Faceless Appeals Rules 2021, for adjudication de novo in accordance with the law and by way of a speaking order. Ordered, accordingly.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1449
Jurisdiction of Additional CIT or JCIT without any independent order u/s. 120(4)(b) u/s. 127 - Jurisdiction of the Addl. CIT/JCIT for conducting the assessment proceedings and passing the draft / final assessment order in the absence of an order issued in writing u/s. 120(4)(b) pursuing the Addl. CIT/JCIT with the powers to perform the functions of “the Assessing Officer” -
HELD THAT:- We find that in the instant case while the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act was initiated by issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act by the ACIT, the draft and final assessment orders for both A.Yrs. 2009-10 and 2010-11 were passed by the Addl. CIT / JCIT without any independent order u/s. 120(4)(b) u/s. 127 of the Act.
From the chronology of events, we find that assessee had repeatedly asked the ld. AO to produce such orders passed u/s. 120(4)(b) and u/s. 127 of the Act passed, if any. Despite giving sufficient time to the ld. DR to produce those orders, no such orders were produced by the ld. DR before us for both the assessment years.
We find under similar facts and circumstances, this Tribunal had indeed admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessee after a long gap of 10 years or 15 years, as the case may be, and adjudicated those additional grounds and allowed the assessee’s appeal by quashing the assessments framed for want of orders u/s. 120(4)(b) and u/s. 127 in cases TATA SONS LTD. VERSUS ACIT CIR. 2 (3) , MUMBAI [2016 (10) TMI 1228 - ITAT MUMBAI], M/S. TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD [2019 (8) TMI 1446 - ITAT MUMBAI], TATA COMMUNICATIONS LTD. [2022 (3) TMI 218 - ITAT MUMBAI].
We find that all the oral and written arguments of the ld. DR have been met in detail by the ld. AR before us as detailed supra. The issue in dispute is already addressed by the various decisions of the Tribunal which are reproduced in the ld. AR's rebuttal referred to supra. The same are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. As stated earlier, the issue is already settled by various decisions of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee.
We hold that in the absence of separate order passed u/s. 120(4)(b) and order u/s. 127 of the Act, the Additional CIT / JCIT had no power to perform the functions of an Assessing Officer u/s. 2(7A) of the Act for both the years under consideration. Accordingly, the assessment orders framed by them are hereby quashed. Assessee appeal allowed.
........
|
9911796707
