|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1435 Records
-
2023 (5) TMI 1435
Taxability of “centralized fee” earned by the respondent/assessee - ITAT held it to be not taxable and fee concerns various aspects, such as sales and marketing charges, loyalty programs, reservation charges, technological services, operational services and training programs/human resources.
Tribunal has noted that the issue stands covered by the judgment of Sheraton International Inc [2009 (1) TMI 27 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
HELD THAT:- As in the respondent/assessee’s case for other AY, the coordinate bench has followed the same approach i.e., accepted the ratio of the judgment in Sheraton International Inc.
According to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Accordingly, the above-captioned appeal is closed.
In view of the fact that the appellant/revenue has preferred an appeal qua the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this court in Sheraton International Inc., it is made clear that if the appellant/revenue were to succeed in the said matter, parties will abide by the final decision rendered by the Supreme Court.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1434
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) - interest income on deposits made out of the surplus funds in cooperative banks and scheduled banks - HELD THAT:- This issue is no longer res integra as the issue was decided in the case of The Ugar Sugar Works Kamgar & Dr. Shirgaokar Shaikshanik Trust Nokar Co-op Credit Society [2021 (11) TMI 1117 - ITAT PANAJI] in favour of the appellant society.
Thus we are of the considered opinion that even the interest income earned by cooperative society on deposits made out of surplus funds with cooperative banks as well as schedule bank qualifies for deduction both under the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)i) and section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, therefore, the reasoning given by the lower authorities on this issue cannot be accepted. Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1433
Violation of principles of natural justice - denial of request of the petitioner for cross-examination of witnesses - HELD THAT:- It is the settled position of law that when a piece of evidence is sought to be made use against an assessee, such an assessee shall be afforded an opportunity of rebuttal as per the principles of natural justice. When, therefore, a statement of any person is pressed into service against an assessee, the person whose statement is to be relied upon is required to be subjected to cross-examination by the person against whom such statement is being used. Otherwise such statement cannot be used since the same clearly amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Hon’ble Apex Court has, in the case of M/s. Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Kolkata-II [2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT] held that 'The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them.'
The scope of this appeal is very limited and the only prayer of the petitioner is for setting aside of the impugned communication and a direction to the Commissioner for affording an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements are being used and hence, with the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
Conclusion - The denial of cross-examination rights when witness statements are used against an assessee constitutes a violation of natural justice, rendering any resultant order null and void.
The communication denying right to cross-examination is not sustainable and the same is therefore set aside - the impugned communication set aside - the Adjudicating Authority is directed to allow cross-examination of any person/s whose statements are sought to be relied upon or used against the petitioner, before passing the adjudication order.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1432
Penalty u/s 271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) - non-compliance of the terms of statutory notice - HELD THAT:- As decided in case of Sanskruti Mega Structure Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (5) TMI 826 - ITAT SURAT] wherein as deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(b)/272A(1)(d) as held the assessee has shown sufficient cause for non-compliance, moreover, such non-compliance was done by granting adjournment by the Assessing officer himself. Further considering the decision in various case laws relied by the ld. AR of the assessee wherein it was held that when the assessment was framed under Section 143(3), merely because the assessee could not make compliance for single hearing due to bonafide reason on the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act cannot be imposed on the assessee for such bonafide default due to reasons beyond his control. In view of aforesaid factual and legal position, we direct the AO to delete the impugned penalty.
We note that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the assessee could not make sufficient compliance before the Assessing Officer. However, ultimately, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act by the Assessing Officer which goes to prove that the earlier absence of the assessee has been duly condoned by him.
The cause shown has to be considered. The word 'reasonable' has in law the prima facie meaning of reasonable with regard to those circumstances of which the actor, called on to act reasonably, knows or ought to know. The reasonable cause can be reasonably said to be a cause which prevents a man of average intelligence and ordinary prudence, acting under normal circumstances, without negligence or inaction or want of bona fides [Azadi Bachao Andcilan v. UOI [2001 (3) TMI 23 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. The words 'reasonable cause' in section 273B must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirement of the law which he had failed to comply with. We note that during the assessment stage, the assessee has made sufficient compliance of notices issued by the assessing officer.
No penalty u/s.271(1)(b) could be levied when an assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) wherein the ld. AO is deemed to have condoned the absence of the assessee or his authorised representative on earlier occasions when subsequently, the details were furnished by him and the assessments were ultimately completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Hence, we deem it fit that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, we direct the AO to delete the said penalty. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1431
Addition u/s 68 - sale of jewelry as a long-term capital gain as bogus - AO shows that the fact of sale of jewellery has been out rightly discarded and rather the explanation of this transaction of sale of jewelry has been taken as the admission of facts with regard to the alleged accommodation entry - HELD THAT:- AO without trying to make any further inquiries from the assessee to ascertain the truthfulness of her holding of the jewellery proceeded to out rightly discard the explanation. Admittedly in the alleged incriminatory material the name of assessee is not reflected and based upon some dummy name she has been connected to the transactions. In the statement of Mr. Parul Ahluwalia or any other witness also there is no specific mention of the transaction with assessee, which has been made foundation for holding she was real beneficiary.
The assessee was required to give explanation of the reasons for receiving the credit entry in her bank which she has given on the basis of the invoice issued by the JBL.
Assessee has reported the sale of jewelry as ‘Long term capital gain’, to discredit the same and to connect assessee with the pseudonymous entries of cash, some evidence or circumstance based on preponderance of probability was required to be shown by Ld. AO, then mere presumption.
What entries JBL was making in accounts is not conclusive against the assessee. May be the Gold purchased was not accounted in stock by JBL and it was merely reflected as cash received. Assessee was not under onus to prove the entries of JBL.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1430
Refund of SAD - Seeking recall of the order, whereby the present appeal was disposed of in view of the earlier decision in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Customs v. Kunal Lalani [2022 (4) TMI 270 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - HELD THAT:- In Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT], this Court had held that provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 did not apply to Special Additional Duties of customs.
Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, did not apply to SAD.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1429
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - acquisition and possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income by the Petitioner and his wife and other family members - applicability of Section 45 read with Section 44 of the PML Act - HELD THAT:- Prima facie the allegations appearing as reveals from the submission of the parties as well as the documents placed is one under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 punishable under Section 4 of the Act. The submissions made in respect to various principles enunciated by the Apex Court as a guide to deal with an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. need no further elaboration which the court, of course, has to look into. Coming to the case in the present it is found that the properties described to have been acquired and possessed which primarily comes within the definition of “proceeds of crime” in various analogy of the definition under the Act thereby makes the Petitioner amenable to the offence. Prima facie, therefore, the case stands against the Petitioner since he is involved in acquisition of the properties in dealing with the “proceeds with crime”.
While this court is not inclined to accept the prayer for anticipatory bail, it is directed that in the event the Petitioner appears before the Special Court in seisin over the matter and move for grant of regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit, keeping in view the developments in law vis-à-vis the facts emerges in the case in hand in their proper prospective and further that the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner was not required during entire process of investigation so far which the Petitioner too has cooperated as acknowledged by the opposite party too and dispose of in accordance with law without being influenced or prejudice of any observation made herein.
Conclusion - The proceedings under the PMLA are maintainable, a prima facie case is established, and the anticipatory bail is not warranted.
The ABLAPL is disposed of.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1428
Assessment u/s 153A - absence of incriminating material found during the search - addition of unsecured loans u/s. 68 - HELD THAT:- In the case of the assessee no incriminating information or observations have been gathered by the search team. The Assessing Officer has also referred to statement of sh Jayanti Lal Jain that he failed to produce the parties during the course of the search to discharge his onus. But said statement has been recorded in post search proceedings on 12/01/2020 and therefore cannot be said to be even part of the search proceedings. The information gathered in other independent survey under section 133A of the Act in the case of ‘Tanaya Vincom P Ltd’ is also not part of the search proceedings in the case of the assessee.
Confessional statement of Sri Kumar Pal Banda and statement of Sri Jayantilal Jain, the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of a sister concern of assessee namely M/s G-Ninemodular p Ltd. [2023 (4) TMI 1402 - ITAT MUMBAI] and others held it to be non-incriminating, relying on the decision of Best Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd .[2017 (8) TMI 250 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
Thus, we hold that there is no incriminating material qua the addition of unsecured loans u/s. 68 of the Act and related additions of interest and commission expenses thereon for obtaining those unsecured loans.
Unverified labour job work expenses - We are of the opinion that the Assessing Officer has neither made any reference of incriminating material found during the course of search not Ld. DR brought to our notice any incriminating material qua these additions and therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) in concluding that additions are not justified any case of non-abated assessment otherwise then the aid of the incriminating material has held in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation [2015 (5) TMI 656 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
Addition of unaccounted business income assessed based on diaries found from Sh Kumarpal Banda - We do not find any error in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) in applying net profit rate for computation of unaccounted profit from the unaccounted business transactions recorded in the seized diaries qua the year under consideration. Accordingly, we uphold the finding of the Ld. CIT (A) on the issue in dispute.
Disallowance for unverified purchases - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- AO has noticed that no inward register of watchmen in respect of those purchases was found. Before the Assessing Officer, it was explained by the assessee that requirement of e-way bill was made applicable under the GST rules from 03/06/2018 only and therefore prior to that there was no requirement of maintaining e-way bill under the relevant law. Regarding the inward watchman register also it was explained by the assessee that at the relevant time there was no policy/procedure of maintaining watchmen inward Register. The Assessing Officer disregarded the submissions. We find that Ld. CIT (A) after taking into those submissions has correctly deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.
Disallowance of employee’s contribution to PF/ESI - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- In view of the decision of Checkmte services Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT] an assessee is not eligible for deduction under section 36(1) (va) of the Act in respect of the employee’s contribution to PF/ESI deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts. Therefore, the finding of the Ld. CIT (A) on the issue in dispute is set aside and the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is sustained.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1427
Denial of benefit of exemption due to the delay in filing Form 10B - assessee in order to get condonation of delay in filing of Form 10B filed an application before CIT(E), Kolkata u/s 119(2)(b) but petition filed by the assessee was rejected since delay in filing the application was more than 365 days.
HELD THAT:- We noticed that the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by relying on the decision of Gujrat Oil & Allied Industries [1992 (9) TMI 67 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that filing of Form 10B is directory and not mandatory. In the case of assessee, Form 10B was obtained on 31.07.2018 and which was subsequently uploaded on e-portal on 12.12.2019. In such scenario, the claim of the assessee cannot be denied.
We have noticed that subsequent to the Board’s Circular No. 2/2020 dated 03.01.2020, another Board’s Circular No. 16/2022 dated 19.07.2022 issued under which the provision of section 119(2)(b) has delegated the powers to PCIT/CIT to condone the delay in filing Form 10B beyond 365 days upto 3 years from the assessment year 2018-19 or for subsequent years and if this circular had applied in the case of assessee then also the time for condonation is as much as within 3 years of such prescribed limit in filing Form 10B.
No infirmity in the order passed by CIT(A), NFAC by allowing the appeal of the assessee.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1426
Method of Valuation - Section 4 or 4A of CEA, 1944 - goods i.e. AC/DC drives, low voltage panels / switchgear and parts, Air Circuit Breakers (ACB), Miniature Circuit Breakers (MCB), Moulded Case Circuit Breakers (MCCB) etc. packed in cartons weighing more than 25 kgs and cleared to industrial consumers through channel partners / distributors - HELD THAT:- The said issue need not dwell in much as after considering the relevant notifications and case laws on the subject in the appellant’s own case for Nelamangala Unit, this Tribunal in [2022 (5) TMI 200 - CESTAT BANGALORE] held that 'The impugned goods, in packages having weight more than 25 kg are not chargeable to duty under Section 4A, only for the reason that they are sold through channel partners; differential duty demanded on this count is set aside'.
The impugned orders are set aside and appeals are allowed.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1425
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition of unexplained investment u/s 69 - as alleged reasons for reopening have not been recorded in a valid manner - HELD THAT:- Roots of reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee are in the information received from Joint DIT (Investigation), Mumbai.
It is not simpliciter on the information received from Investigation Wing that the AO re-opened assessment. Though, the belief of the AO stemmed from information from Investigation Wing, the AO further gathered information through AIR on another issue. After receipt of information, the same was examined by the AO and thereafter he proceeded on to reopen the assessment. We find no infirmity in reopening of the assessment, hence, ground no. 1 of appeal is dismissed, being devoid of any merit.
Addition u/s 69 - Assessee has purchased flat from the funds having source outside India (Muscat) - The provisions of Article 24 of India-Oman DTAA are pari-materia to Article 22 of India-UAE DTAA that was examined in Rajeev Suresh Ghai [2021 (12) TMI 697 - ITAT MUMBAI] case. As per the provisions of section 90(2) of the Act, the assessee is entitled to benefit of treaty to the extent it is more beneficial to the assessee. Thus, provisions of India-Oman DTAA, the addition made u/s 69 of the Act is unsustainable and is thus, liable to be deleted. We hold and direct, accordingly.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1424
Addition u/s 68 - share capital/premium treated as unexplained cash credit - assessee has failed to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the subscribers and genuineness of the transaction - ITAT deleted addition - HELD THAT:- The share subscriber company was a holding company of the assessee company and both the companies were having common directors and that the share subscribing/holding company was interested in the business of the assessee. The nature of business activity was examined by the tribunal and noted that the assessee company had completed multiple pieces of land in the State of UP for developing a project in phases.
The estimated cost of the project at the relevant point of time was Rs. 300 crores. The assessee company had registered its project before the Real Estate Development Authority, U.P. The tribunal noted that the funds of the investing company and its creditworthiness has been duly considered and discussed by the CIT[A].
The entire share subscription amount was received by the tribunal from its holding company, i.e., IBIPL which in turn is promoted by Infinity Infotech Parks Limited and provided funds for execution of the project either by own or through subsidiaries.
Tribunal also took note that the CIT[A] called for a remand report from assessing officer in respect of various details and evidence was submitted by the assessee and thereafter after considering the remand report the CIT[A] passed the order.
Tribunal also took note of the decisions of this Court in the case of Anmol Stainless (P) Ltd. [2022 (2) TMI 649 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and ultimately dismissed the appeal. No substantial question of law arising.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1423
Sanction of scheme of Composite Scheme of Amalgamation - Sections 230 to 232 and other applicable provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- From the material on record, the Scheme annexed as Exhibit “A-1” to the Company Scheme Petition appears to be fair and reasonable and is not violative of any provisions of law and is not contrary to public policy.
Since all the requisite statutory compliances have been fulfilled, the said Company Scheme Petition is made absolute in terms of the prayer - the scheme is sanctioned - petition allowed.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1422
Condonation of delay of 453 days in filing the second appeal by the revenue department - sufficient cause for delay or not - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the said application for condonation of delay, it transpires that the reasons assigned by the department were that there was no competent officer, who discharge the duty as well as the officers were on election duty and also there was a shortage of manpower in the department as such the appeal could not be preferred within limitation. So far as the plea taken by the State that the officers were on election duty are concerned, specific objection was raised by the petitioner in this respect giving the details of the officers, who were on election duty and also put the relevant materials on record to controvert the other grounds raised for condonation of delay, however, without considering the same, the impugned order has been passed. The explanation given for condonation of delay by the State authority for filing the appeal beyond limitation of 453 days, is wholly inadequate and unjustifiable as neither the details of the officers, who were posted on election duty is mentioned nor any date and time of their joining back on their duty, were given.
The Supreme Court in the case of Office of Chief Post Master General and others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. And another [2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT] has held that 'Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.'
Conclusion - The Tribunal has committed illegality in condoning the delay without appreciation of the objection filed by the petitioner as well as sufficiency of cause for not filing the second appeal within the limitation.
The impugned order condoning the delay set aside - petition allowed.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1421
Compounding the offence u/s 276B - application rejected, on the solitary ground that the application was not filed within the prescribed period of 12 months - HELD THAT:- When the power of relaxation has been granted to the authority who considers the compounding application, such power shall be invoked in appropriate cases to advance the cause of justice. In this case, we have found that the application was filed on 17.01.2020 for compounding the offence u/s 276B. But that was not supported by an affidavit and as such, it could be stated that the application was not complete.
But when on 05.02.2020, the affidavit was filed, that affidavit was filed to verify the statements made in the application dated 17.01.2020. The appropriate authority, having adopted a technical approach, held the main application to have filed beyond the prescribed period i.e. 31.01.2020. In our considered view, that was a wrong approach. First of all, the affidavit was filed for verification of the statements in the application dated 17.01.2020. By filing the affidavit, the defect in the application stood removed. Thereafter, it cannot be held that the application for compounding was filed on 05.02.2020 or the compounding application was time-barred.
Set aside the order and remand the matter back for deciding the application of compounding on merit within a period of 30 days.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1420
Rejection of appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the Assessment Order on the main ground that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The Assessment Order shows that it was passed by the 1st respondent on 30.06.2022. Then a perusal of the copy of the discharge summary issued by M/s Ramesh Cardiac and Multispeciality Hospital, filed along with material papers shows that the petitioner was admitted in the said hospital on 24th August, 2022 and after undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery, he was discharged on 12th September, 2022.
The petitioner would submit that the petitioner received the copy of the Assessment Order on 01.07.2022. Having regard to these facts particularly that the petitioner underwent a major surgery and though he was discharged on 12th September, 2022, it would take considerable period for him to stabilize and pursue the regular business activities, it is noticed that the delay is not wanton but the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to file the appeal and contest the original Assessment Order.
Conclusion - The delay of 60 days in filing the appeal is condoned exercising the plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent with a direction to register the appeal and after hearing both parties pass appropriate order expeditiously.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1419
Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices under SEBI Act -manipulation or structured trade - imposition of penalties for creating misleading appearance of trading through miniscule trades - HELD THAT:- No arguments / submissions was made against the findings given by the AO with regard to the shares being received off- market by noticees no. 1, 2 and 3. No arguments was raised that the receipt of the shares was with consideration or that the finding of the AO that it was received without consideration is incorrect. The violation of spot delivery u/s 2(i) (a) of the SCRA was also not contested. Consequently, the finding of the AO that the shares of the Company Wisec Global Limited were received by noticees no. 1, 2 and 3 without any consideration from a director of the Company Kolluru Surya Prakash Venkata is affirmed. The violation of Section 2(i) read with Regulations 13, 16 and 18 of the SCRA is also affirmed.
The fact that false information was furnished by noticee no. 1, namely, that the off-market transaction was a loan transaction is also affirmed, since this point was not argued before us.
Thus, it is clear that noticees no. 1, 2 and 3 received the shares of the Company Wisec Global Ltd. from its Director Kolluru Surya Prakash Venkata without consideration and with the sole intention of increasing the price of the scrip which was the motive.
We find that these noticees were selling the shares in miniscule quantities creating NHP and by such trades increased the price of scrip which was manipulative and violative of Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations.
The contention that there was no manipulation or structured trade is patently erroneous in as much as we find that the trading pattern of the buyers and the sellers was that they traded in close proximity of time inter-se between them.
The buy and sell orders were placed within a short time interval varying from 1 minute to 2,3 or 4 minutes.
Such trading pattern as found by the AO cannot occur by accident or by coincidence. The trading pattern leads to an inference that there was a meeting of minds with a pre-determined plan and, therefore, there was a collusion between the parties. Such trades executed, in our opinion, are not genuine and were done with a fraudulent intent to create artificial volume in the scrip.
Consequently, the findings that noticees no. 1, 2 and 3 have manipulated the price of the scrip through small trades does not suffer from any error of law. The trading pattern of noticees no. 1, 2 and 3 with noticees no. 9, 11 and 12, clearly indicates that these structured trades were done with the intent of creating artificial volumes and misleading appearance of trading with the intent of misleading the investors. Such structured trades were violative of Section 12A of the SEBI Act read with Regulations 3 and 4 of the PFUTP Regulations. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
For the reasons stated aforesaid, we do not find any error in the impugned order. All the appeals fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs. Misc. Application are disposed off accordingly.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1418
Belated deposit of employees’ contribution towards the EPF and ESI - as submitted a substantial part of the issue in the appeal is covered by the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in Checkmates Services Pvt. Ltd [2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT] - Appellant submitted the due date which arose under the subject statute for deposit of employees‟ contribution towards provident fund, arose on a National Holiday, for instance, 15th August, and the deposit was made on the following day.
This aspect is pending examination by the Court, as cited the order of Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd [2023 (9) TMI 1663 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
Appellant says that he would have to move an application for amendment, so that this aspect of the matter, which otherwise emerges from the record, is embedded in the grounds of appeal.
HELD THAT:- Leave in that behalf is granted.
List the matter on 05.09.2023.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1417
Disallowance u/s.14A in book profits u/s.115JB - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- Since ITAT has been consistently deleting the adjustment made to the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act on account of disallowance of expenses as per the provision of section 14A of the Act in the case of the assessee itself right from AY 2009-10 TO 2011-12 and even in Asst.Year 2015-16 considering the decision of Alembic Ltd. [2017 (1) TMI 513 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and Vireet Investment P.Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] and the fact that the ld.DR being unable to distinguish the decisions cited (supra) to the facts of the present, we see no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the adjustment made to the book profits of the assessee on account of expenses disallowed u/s 14A following the consistent view taken by the ITAT in this regard in the case of the assessee itself - Decided in favour of assessee.
TP upward adjustment u/s.92CA(3) - corporate guarantee fees - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- This issue was consistently decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT right from Asst.Year 2008-09 to 2011-12 and even in Asst.Year 2015-16. Copies of all these orders were placed before us. It was also pointed out that the issue was covered by the decision of Micro Ink [2015 (12) TMI 143 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] wherein it was held that the issuance of corporate guarantee did not constitute international transactions and no TP adjustment is liable to made. Thus, no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) deleting upward adjustment.
Disallowing employee's contribution towards PF and ESIC u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) - HELD THAT:- Since the issue stands settled and decided against the assessee in view of the decision in the case of Checkmate Services P.Ltd. [2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been held that the provision of section 36(1)(va) of the Act warrants addition to the income of the assessee to the extent of amount so delayed to be deposited in the relevant funds. The ground raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed.
Disallowance of expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning exempt income as per section 14A - Addition restricted by CIT(A) to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) had restricted the disallowance to extent of exempt income earned by following the decision of Corrtech Energy Ld. [2014 (3) TMI 856 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. Since the ld.DR was unable to distinguish the said case before us, nor was he brought to our notice any contrary decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court or of the Apex Court, we see no reasons to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A) restricting the disallowance of expenditure under section 14A of the Act to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1416
Authority of Commissioner of the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation to dismiss the Respondent from service based on the powers conferred by Resolution No. 51 dated 20.11.1998 - HELD THAT:- It is required to be noted that after departmental proceedings and on conclusion of the inquiry, the charges and the misconduct alleged against the Respondent have been proved, which has been even confirmed by the learned Single judge. However, thereafter, solely on the ground that the Commissioner, who passed the order of dismissal had no power/authority to impose the penalty of dismissal on the Respondent, who, at the relevant time, was serving as City Engineer, the learned Single Judge quashed the order of dismissal with all consequential benefits and the same has been confirmed by the Division Bench.
The Commissioner was authorized to take action against the erring officers with respect to the lapses and carelessness with various works in purchases only. Therefore, both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division bench of the High Court have rightly observed and held that the Resolution No. 51 did not authorize and/or confer any power upon the Commissioner to take action with respect to any other lapses other than the purchases. However, at the same time, it is required to be noted that the decision of the Commissioner was placed before the General Board and the General Board vide its Resolution No. 56 dated 15.12.1998 as amended by subsequent Resolution dated 30.12.1998, ratified the decision of the Commissioner dismissing the Respondent from service.
Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Pannalal Choudhury [2015 (7) TMI 1238 - SUPREME COURT] to the facts of the case on hand, any irregularity complained of by the Respondent on the authority exercised by the Commissioner to dismiss him stood ratified by the competent authority (General Board) thereby making an invalid act a lawful one in conformity with the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules.
Conclusion - The Commissioner's initial lack of authority was cured by the General Board's ratification, thereby reinstating the dismissal order.
The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as well as the learned Single Judge quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
........
|
9911796707
