|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 2152 Records
-
2018 (9) TMI 2076
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Assessee has filed objections to reopening which has not been disposed of by the Assessing Officer by way of a separate order before framing the assessment - HELD THAT:- In our opinion such disposal of objection by way of separate order is mandatory in view of the decision of the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of KSS Petron Pvt [2016 (10) TMI 1112 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] after following the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. [2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] held that in case of non-disposal of objection the assessment has to be quashed. Even otherwise the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment are not valid reasons. First reasons recorded is invalid as it is covered in favour of the assessee.
Addition towards various bad debts and advance given during the ordinary course of business of the assessee written off - HELD THAT:- We find that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have passed the making order after considering the facts on record. A perusal of the assessment order reveals that the assessee has filed all the necessary details in respect of sundry debtors and trading advances which were written off in the books of account. Both the authorities below have not gone into the evidence filed by the assessee. On the other hand the position of law is very clear that if the amounts are written off in the books of account by the assessee, the same have to be allowed. Under these circumstances, we are not in agreement with the conclusion of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance.
Disallowance of reallocation expenses pertaining to head office - HELD THAT:- AO has given a clear finding that the expenditure claimed under various heads also related to the Daman unit and therefore the same was estimated. There is no material produced before us to controvert the said finding. Merely because the accounts are audited does not mean that expenses incurred for the head office could not relate to the other unit. The assessee has also referred to some other decisions but in none of the cases it has been held that even if there is material to show that expenditure relating to a particular unit has been incurred the same cannot be determined on estimate. Therefore in our view the allocation made by the Assessing Officer on estimate is justified on the facts of the case. However, we find some merit in the alternate submission that only the incremental and additional expenses on account of commencement and establishment of Daman unit should be re-allocated to the said unit. There is no clear finding on this aspect and therefore it needs further examination. We there fore restore this aspect to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order after necessary examination and after allowing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee
Exclusion of other income while calculating the deduction under section 80-IB - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case.
Not allowing the exclusion of income from the expenses attributable that that income or revenue under the same head - HELD THAT:- We observe that the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (2) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT]has held that the income has to be netted against the expenses incurred under the same head. We, therefore, respectfully following the same, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
Excluding the deduction under section 80-IB while computing the deduction under section 80HHC - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue is decided by the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Associated Capsules P. Ltd. [2011 (1) TMI 787 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that while computing the deduction under section 80HHC deduction under section 80-IB is not to be excluded. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision, set aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under section 80HHC in respect of the same income.
Applying Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC in respect of various receipts like interest from banks, royalty receipt, rent, etc - HELD THAT: - We find that the identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case held f royalty received reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Glaxo Smithkline Asia (P.) Ltd.[2005 (8) TMI 301 - ITAT DELHI-C] in which it was specifically held that computed on the basis of profit of business computed under the head profit or gains of business or profession, under the provisions of the Act and as per method prescribed under sub-section (3) or (3A) of section 80HHC and the deduction actually available under the provisions of sub-section (1B) of section 80HHC will be allowed as deduction under clause (iv) of Explanation I to section 115JB.
Applying Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC in respect of labour charges received from job-work is a part of the operational income of the assessee - As decided in BANGALORE CLOTHING CO. [2003 (1) TMI 89 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where element of turnover was involved, 90 per cent. of the job charges could not be excluded from the profit of business. The Tribunal following the said judgment held that 90 per cent. of job charges was not required to be excluded as per Explanation (baa). We have to follow the decision of the co-ordinate Bench as the co-ordinate Bench had specifically considered the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Ravindranathan Nair[2000 (11) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] relied upon by the learned Departmental representative. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Star India Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (5) TMI 660 - ITAT MUMBAI] we see no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowing the claim of the assessee
Treating the duty drawback as a benefit falling under section 28(iii)(c) of the Act and denying the benefit of deduction under section 80HHC read with Explanation (baa) under section 80HHC - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the export incentives received by the asses see by way of duty drawback are part of the profit and gains from business and profession and therefore the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80HHC on the export incentive in the form of duty drawback. The issue is squarely covered by the apex court in favour of the assessee in the case of Topman Exports [2012 (2) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT]. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under section 80HHC as claimed by the assessee.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2075
Estimation of income - Bogus purchases - CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.5% of the value of purchases - HELD THAT:- In the instant case has stated that Mr. Rajendra Jain, Mr. Dharmichand Jain and Mr. Anoop Jain have appeared before him. However, it is not made clear as to whether the above said three persons were partners/directors, all the suppliers belonging to Rajendra Jain. The purchases made from companies, where these three persons are either partner/director, shall be aware by the above said decision rendered by Coordinate Bench. The purchases made from other companies, however requires fresh examination. Accordingly, we restore the issue relating to addition on account of bogus purchases made in all the years under consideration to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to delete the addition relating to purchases made from companies, in which above said three persons are partner/director. In the respect of purchases made from other concerns belong to Mr. Rajendra Jain the AO may examine it afresh.
Disallowance of interest - Assessee had advanced interest free amounts to some concerns and hence the AO disallowed interest expenditure - HELD THAT:- Since the co-ordinate bench has considered an identical issue in AY 2011-22 [2017 (10) TMI 160 - ITAT MUMBAI]and restored the same to the file of the AO, following the said order of the Tribunal, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with similar directions given by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in A.Y. 2011-12.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2074
Validity of assessment order - proper notices not served on the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Though it is contended before this Court that there was no proper notices served on the petitioner, except making such vague averment, the petitioner has not substantiated such allegation, by placing any material facts. On the other hand, the Assessing Officer has categorically found that the notices of proposal were served on the petitioner on 22.11.2016 and 28.02.2017 respectively. Apart from the said fact, it is also seen that the Assessing Officer has given a factual finding that the petitioner has not filed either their monthly return or annual return for the respective assessment year. When such being the factual findings rendered by the Assessing Officer, in the absence of any other contra materials placed before this Court disputing such factual aspects, this Court is of the view that it is for the petitioner to approach the next fact finding authority, by filing a regular appeal, so that all the factual contentions raised by the petitioner, challenging the impugned assessment orders can be considered by the said fact finding authority viz., the First Appellate Authority.
Without expressing any view on the merits of the matter, both these writ petitions are disposed of, by granting liberty to the petitioner to file such statutory appeals within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by complying with other statutory requirements for filing those appeals.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2073
Maintainability of appeal on low tax effect against CIT - A Order - addition of guest fees, hire of rooms and hire charges in respect of club lawns and disallowance u/s.57(iii) - CIT- A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- Revenue is not maintainable in view of the recent CBDT Circular No.3/2018 in F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt) dated 11th July, 2018, vide which it has been decided by the Board that no departmental appeals should be filed before the Tribunal if the tax effect by virtue of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)’s order is below ₹ 20 Lacs. The Board has provided exemptions at clause (10) of the Instructions wherein it has been provided that these instructions will not be applicable, where the Constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act/Rule is under challenge or where Board’s order, notification, instruction or circular has been held to be illegal or where Revenue Audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department or where the addition relates to undisclosed foreign assets/bank accounts etc. We find that the present case does not fall within the exemption clause and the tax effect is less than ₹ 20 Lacs. Therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable and hence dismissed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2072
Addition u/s.40(a)(ia) for want of deduction of tax at source - failure to furnish Form 26A for the interest paid by it to M/s. Reliance Capital Ltd - HELD THAT:- Assessee had addressed a letter to M/s. Reliance Capital Ltd for getting Form 26A, but the said company had not responded. Where the payee had included the amounts received as a part of its income and filed return after paying the taxes, assessee can always say that it cannot be deemed as one in default.
By virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Land Mark Township P. Ltd [2015 (9) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT] first proviso to Section 201(1) as well as proviso to Section 40(a)(i) of the Act had to be construed retrospectively. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that issue requires a fresh look by the ld. Assessing Officer. Ld. Assessing Officer can use the powers vested on him for getting the required information from M/s. Reliance Capital Ltd, so as to ascertain whether they had included the interest paid by the assessee, as a part of their income and filed return after paying due taxes. Ld. Assessing Officer can also direct the M/s. Reliance Capital Ltd to issue the certificate mandated in Annexure A to form 26A, if the said company fails to respond to assessee’s request. Ld. Assessing Officer shall thereafter proceed in accordance with law. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2071
Addition towards capital gains u/s 45(3) - profit accrued to assessee company on transfer/contribution of capital by way of contribution in the form of its share of ‘land asset’ to the ‘partnership firm’ - HELD THAT:- We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate bench decision of this tribunal in the case of another partner of the assessee i/e M/s Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt Ltd [2018 (8) TMI 2075 - ITAT KOLKATA] holding that the assessee did not make any short term capital gains taxable under section 45(3) of the Act or otherwise and that on revaluation of its fixed assets by the firm (of its land and building) there was no income that accrued or arose in the hands of the partners and the addition on account of alleged revaluation profit is not sustainable and was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2070
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Disallowance of agricultural income - addition as income from other sources - HELD THAT:- In case the assessment is reopened on an issue and no addition is made on that ground and the addition is made on other issues which did not find mention in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, then such order of re-assessment cannot be upheld. Applying the said principle of JET AIRWAYS (I) LTD. [2010 (4) TMI 431 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY] to the facts of the present case being the decision of jurisdictional High Court, there is no merit in re-assessment order passed under section 148 of the Act.
Jurisdiction of the JCIT i.e. online approval mentions to be JCIT, Range-I, Aurangabad - Online recording of reasons and online approval of JCIT in the absence of specific provisions under the Act provided for the same, cannot be upheld since in the relevant assessment years, no such amendment was made to the Income-tax Act. Without going into allegation of recording of reasons on a date before the date of approval by the JCIT or after issuing notice, are not being individually addressed as it is case of Revenue that proceedings for re-assessment were initiated on the basis of online application, online seeking of approval by the Assessing Officer from JCIT and the said approval being granted by JCIT online. In the absence of any provisions in the Act at the relevant point of time, find no merit in the re-assessment proceedings initiated against assessee - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2069
Additions on account of cash payment to the sellers of the land - additions on the basis of documents found and seized during the course of search - Whether CIT(A) has erred in allowing the claim of the assessee merely based on the self serving statements made by the MD of the assessee and its employees, also of the sellers? - HELD THAT:- As in different seized material different narrations are there. These seized materials does not contain the entries of cash payment. Rather it contains the various payments along with dates. The CIT(A) has compared these dates of payments along with actual date of payment through cheque etc., and he found that the entries found in the seized material do not co-relate with the actual payments recorded in the books of accounts. Moreover, the total payment according to the seized material is ₹ 22.3 crores against which assessee has explained the total payment through cheque was made at 22.05 crores with regard to which CIT(A) has observed that this figure comes closer to the figure shown in the seized material at ₹ 22.3 Crores.
During the course of hearing DR could not explain as to how the entries in seized material can be taken into account for making an addition on account of cash payment of ₹ 5 Crores to the seller in the light of the fact that the entries found in the seized material do not co-relate with the payments recorded in the books of accounts.
As carefully examined the orders of CIT(A) and we find that CIT(A) has made detailed analysis of the entries found in the seized material and the entries recorded in the books of accounts and he has rightly concluded where the entries with regard to payment through cheque do not co-relate with the entries recorded in the books of accounts, no cognizance of the entries recorded with regard to the entries relating to cash payment in the seized material can be taken. We therefore are of the view that CIT(A) has rightly adjudicated the issue. No defect has been pointed out by the learned DR. We therefore confirm the order of the CIT(A) deleting the additions in both the years.
Addition of interest payment outside the books of accounts - additions on account of cash payment to the sellers of the land and interest payment outside the books - HELD THAT:-CIT(A) has deleted the addition on account of interest paid outside the books of accounts and we find that the addition was deleted having noted that the loose sheets on the basis of which inference was drawn by the AO for interest on delayed payments itself is not reliable piece of evidence and the entries found with regard to the payment through cheque do not co-relate with the entries found in the books of account. We, therefore, are of the view that CIT(A) has rightly examined the issue under the given facts and circumstances of the case and we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and we confirm the same.
Appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2068
Penalty levied u/s.271E - genuineness of the transaction made through journal entries - HELD THAT:- As decided in LODHA BUILDERS PVT LTD AND OTHERS [2018 (7) TMI 2090 - ITAT MUMBAI] and M/S. AASTHAVINAYAK ESTATE COMPANY LTD. [2018 (5) TMI 1745 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein under identical circumstances, the deletion of penalty was upheld. Since the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has already upheld the deletion of the penalty on the identical grounds, therefore while following the judicial consistency and judicial principles, we dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2067
Application seeking to enhance the valuation of the suit - also seeking liberty to quantify the damages, which were not quantified till the date of filing of the application - Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC - HELD THAT:- It is essential to observe however that the plaintiff undoubtedly through the suit filed by the plaintiff as filed initially itself had sought injunction and damages. Setting up of the claim of quantification thus of the damages is apparently essential as laid down by the hon’ble Division Bench of the Court in ZUBAIR UL ABIDIN VERSUS SAMEENA ABIDIN [2014 (7) TMI 1354 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. The aspect of the merits or demerits of the amendment cannot be gone into at this stage.
Though undoubtedly there is an undue delay in seeking the prayer made by the petitioner, as apparent from the record, in view of the proceedings dated 08.08.2018 between the same parties in CM (M) No. 822/2018, the plaint instituted on 04.10.2006 has not yet reached the stage of completion of pleadings as on the date 08.08.2018 and has still not reached the same apparently, and thus the amendment to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in view of the factum that issues have not yet been framed would not come into play.
It is considered essential and appropriate to set aside the order of the learned Trial Court which had not permitted the amendment prayed for - taking into account the delay and laches in the case on behalf of the petitioner seeking to quantify the damages, the amendment sought by the plaintiffs i.e. the petitioners is allowed subject to payment of cost of ₹ 80,000 to be paid to the respondent before the learned Trial Court.
Petition disposed off.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2066
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- Though, it is a fact that assessment in case of the assessee was originally completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, however, it is evident from the facts on record that specific information came to the possession of the Assessing Officer after completion of the original assessment revealing that certain purchases made by the assessee was not genuine. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no tangible material in the possession of the AO after completion of the original assessment. At the time of reopening of assessment u/s.147 AO has to form a prima facie belief that income has escaped assessment. The belief to be formed by the AO must have a rational nexus with the information available on record. In the present case, the AO had in his possession specific information/material indicating escapement of income which came to his possession after completion of the original assessment. That being the case, in our considered opinion, there is no deficiency in the proceedings initiated u/s. 147 of the Act. Accordingly, we dismiss the ground raised by the assessee.
Bogus purchases - Since, the assessee failed to conclusively prove the fact that purchases made from the concerned party was genuine coupled with the fact that there was specific information from DGIT (Inv) as well as Sales Tax Department that the concerned party is a hawala operator, it has to be believed that the purchases claimed to have been made from the concerned party is not genuine. However, it is a fact on record that the AO has not disputed or disturbed the sales effected by the assessee - there is a possibility that the assessee has purchased goods from sources other than the declared source to avoid payment of VAT/other taxes. In view of the aforesaid, it will be appropriate to tax the profit element embedded in such bogus purchases. On considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the prevalent VAT rate, we are of the view that the addition on account of bogus purchases should be restricted to 12.5% - The assessee gets relief to that extent. This ground is partly allowed.
Violation of rules of natural justice - There is no specific argument by the learned AR on this issue. Even otherwise also, on analysing the factual matrix of the case, we are of the view that full opportunity was given to the assessee to prove the genuineness of purchases made, both by the Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT(A). That being the case, the plea of the assessee that it was not provided proper opportunity is unacceptable. Fact remains that it is the assessee who has shown purchases from a party, identified as hawala operator. Therefore, the onus is entirely on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases by either producing the concerned party or obtaining confirmations from him. The assessee has failed to do any such thing. Moreover, notices/summons issued by the AO to the concerned party in the given address have returned unserved. In these circumstances, the assessee cannot come forward with a plea that principle of natural justice is violated. Therefore, there being no merit in this ground, it is dismissed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2065
Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - allegations against the petitioners that they are responsible for the day to day affairs of the company or not - signatories of the cheque or not - HELD THAT:- In order to prove that the petitioners are not in charge of day to day affairs, he submits that the petitioners are independent directors and hence, they cannot be assumed as being responsible for the conduct of business by A1 company. In order to draw support to the contention that the petitioners are only independent directors and did not have any role to play in the day to day affairs of the company, the annual reports pertaining to the years 2009-2010. 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 were filed, which show that the petitioners are directors and the category is non-executive independent.
The contention that the question whether the petitioners are independent directors and whether they are not in charge of day to day affairs, can be left to be decided after trial, is not in the spirit of the law, which directs quash of proceedings, when the contents of the complaint, coupled with the unimpeachable material produced by the petitioners, would not make out a case against the petitioners. This Court opines that continuation of further proceedings against the petitioners would only result in abuse of process of law.
Petition allowed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2064
Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) - discrepancy in the form No.10CCB - HELD THAT:- From the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), it is found that the objections of the assessing officer has been met by the assessee as the assessee has produced a certificate from the Chartered Accountant stating the discrepancy as typographical error and also by furnishing completion certificate issued by the local authority.
Further, as per the CBDT instruction No.4 of 2009 dated 30.6.2009, the assessee can claim deduction on a year to year basis. We therefore, do not see any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the ground of the revenue’s appeal is rejected.
Addition of bogus creditors - D.R. submitted that the notices sent to these creditors were returned unserved, therefore, the A.O. was justified in making the addition - CIT(A) has deleted this addition - HELD THAT:- We do not see any reason to interfere in this finding of the Ld. CIT(A) as the findings are based upon the evidences furnished by the assessee. Moreover, the assessee has filed affidavits of the creditors, their bank account and also the supporting bills. This ground of the revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2063
Seeking approval of the replaced Resolution Professional - Section 22(4) of the IBC, 2016 - HELD THAT:- We presume the confirmation by the IBBI and approve the name of Ms. Nisha Malpani to act as an RP. Thus we accord our acceptance to the proposal made by the COC. The RP is expected to discharge her functions diligently, honestly and ethically. She is also expected to file reports from time to time as per the requirements of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the Regulations and guide the COC as per the provisions of the statute and Regulations.
Application disposed off.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2062
Application for grant of permission to go abroad - pendency of trial - HELD THAT:- The permission to go abroad during pendency of trial should not invariably be declined unless there are reasons to believe that such permission is being sought for oblique considerations. In Anjal Kumar @ Angel Kumar Versus State of Punjab [2009 (10) TMI 980 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], in somewhat similar circumstances, where a person was facing the criminal trial and was declined permission to go abroad, as the accused was facing trial in case under Section 420 , 406, 403, 34 IPC, the accused was allowed to go abroad and the Court.
A direction is issued to the trial Court/Duty Magistrate to permit the petitioner to go abroad, for which, the petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of ₹ 5 lakh with an undertaking that she would report back on or before 15.02.2019. The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may further impose any other condition which it may deem fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case - Petition allowed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2061
Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Contract receipt for the year shown in the P&L account as different from ITS detail and Form 26AS - CIT(A) deleted the penalty/s. 271(1)(c) observing that the AO had not given any credit for tax deducted at source while calculating tax sought to be evaded and assessee had accepted the mistake, offered income to be taxed at a much higher rate than actually earned and did not file any appeal - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in this case, the assessee has conceded the turnover to the tune of ₹ 1,40,49,048/- which led to the estimation of income by the Assessing Officer and consequent levy of penalty. Therefore, quantification of suppressed turnover is not based on mere estimation. It is only based on Form 26AS related to the assessee.
Consequent to the quantification of the suppressed turnover, profit on it was estimated. The assessee has not been able to substantiate the reason for not disclosing the correct turnover to the Department - there was actual suppression of turnover by the assessee which resulted in concealment of income of the assessee - estimation of income was not challenged by the assessee before the higher forum which means that the assessee has admitted concealment of income. Hence, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is justified. However, in our opinion, levy of penalty at 200% of the tax sought to be evaded is not proper and not reasonable.
It is very excessive. Accordingly, we modify the penalty order of the Assessing Officer and sustain the penalty at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded which works out to ₹ 10,25,850/-. This ground of appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2060
Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - addition on account of investment in excess stock found during the course of survey at the mines of the assessee - HELD THAT:- The statement of the assessee was recorded in which he has offered the additional income - Besides, offering additional income assessee has also stated that he will arrive at the actual amount and furnish the details based on the valuation report. The assessee accordingly came forward to offer an amount for taxation in his hands for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The Tribunal has also recorded the statement of the assessee in its order. The assessee made retraction from his earlier statement after more than a year i.e., on 10.09.2009 when he was repeatedly asked to file the return of income.
Through retraction, assessee simply wanted to upgrade the books of account to explain the excess stock. The Tribunal has taken all these facts into account while adjudicating the issue. Since there is addition on account of excess stock found during the course of survey, there was no question of any adjustment of the closing stock of the earlier years which became the opening stock of the succeeding year. That is why, the Tribunal did not specifically deal with ground No. 8 raised by the assessee.
As carefully perused the order of the Tribunal and we find that Tribunal has examined all necessary aspects while adjudicating the issue. Since we do not notice any error apparent in the order of the Tribunal, we find no merit in the miscellaneous application of the assessee. Moreover, the scope of section 254 (2) is very limited and only those errors can be rectified which are apparent in the order of the Tribunal. The view taken by the Tribunal cannot be reviewed under the garb of rectification under section 254(2) of the Act. We, therefore, dismiss the miscellaneous application of the assessee.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2059
Nature of receipt - revenue or capital receipt - incentives received from Engine Manufactures - HC held identical issue was decided by another Division Bench by this Court in CIT v. Jetlite India Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 304 - DELHI HIGH COURT] therefore, the said question does not arise - HELD THAT:- Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2058
Maintainability of application - stay of operation of the impugned judgment - HELD THAT:- There shall be stay of operation of the impugned judgment and order of the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi.
Application admitted.
-
2018 (9) TMI 2057
Company affairs being conducted prejudicial to the public interest - Respondent Companies and their directors having caused wrongful loss by fraudulent means - business of the Company is being conducted with intent to defraud its creditors, members etc. - HELD THAT:- List the matters on Tuesday i.e. 13.11.2018.
........
|
9911796707
