|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 325037 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2020 (7) TMI 163
Grant of Statutory Bail - offence under Section 132(1)(b) & (c) and 132(5) of the CGST Act 2017 - inability to deposit cash security - it is the contention of the petitioners that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the family members are unable to raise funds and deposit the amount - HELD THAT:- The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on executing their own bond for a sum of ₹ 50,000/- each, before the Superintendent of the concerned prison, in which the petitioner has been confined and thereafter on their release - each of the petitioners shall furnish two sureties who shall deposit title deeds of immovable properties each to the value of ₹ 20lakhs before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EO-I), Egmore, Chennai within four weeks from the lifting of the lock down or the commencement of the Court's normal functioning, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically.
- 2020 (7) TMI 162
Filing of Form TRAN-1 - transitional credit - time limitation - vires of Rule 117(1A) of Haryana GST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The Petitioner has challenged vires of Rule 117 (1A) of Rules, however we do not think it appropriate to declare it invalid as we are of the considered opinion that Petitioner is entitled to carry forward Cenvat Credit accrued under Central Excise Act, 1944. The Respondents have repeatedly extended date to file TRAN-I where there was technical glitch as per their understanding. Repeated extensions of last date to file TRAN-I in case of technical glitches as understood by Respondent vindicate claim of the Petitioner that denial of unutilized credit to those dealers who are unable to furnish evidence of attempt to upload TRAN-I would amount to violation of Article 14 as well Article 300A of the Constitution of India....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 161
Power to transfer cases u/s 127 - Stay on transfer of case - Period of limitation for passing an assessment - intra-Court appeal - This is a case where the assessment files are being transferred from one city to a neighbouring city hardly 158 kms. away, in the same State. What inconvenience can this cause to V.V. Minerals No.2, especially when they have business and offices in several cities? Held That:- We are aware that Section 127 of the IT Act does not create any geographical classification. Nevertheless, the judgments of Courts should not be read as Euclid's theorem, but, should be understood in the context in which they were rendered, and a blind and pedantic following of precedents is not expected of Constitutional Courts. First submission of Mr. Lakshmi Narayanan, Mr. Senthil Kumar submitted that V.V. Minerals No.2 had challen....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 160
No adjudication on the appeal - Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department submits that there would not be an aversion to the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, in case an appropriate direction is issued for the adjudication of the appeal - HELD THAT:- Dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to take a call on the appeal Ext.P2 or interim application preferred against the assessment order as expeditiously as possible, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. Till such time, coercive action if any pertaining to Ext.P1 order is ordered to be kept in abeyance. It is made clear that the interim direction shall be operative only till the adjudication of the appeal.
- 2020 (7) TMI 159
Exemption u/s 11 - proof of charitable activity - Assessee was granted registration under section 12AA by order dated 20/06/1988 - non applicability of provisions of sec.2(15) - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case [2015 (7) TMI 169 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] referring to the provisions of the KIDA Act [Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966], and principle laid down in the aforesaid decision of the HonbIe Delhi High Court in the case of India Promotion Organization [2015 (1) TMI 928 - DELHI HIGH COURT] in our view, will clearly show that the Assessee does not driven primarily by desire or motive to earn profits but to do charity through advancement of an object of general public utility. The assessee is operating on no profit basis. This is substantiated by the actual income received on operations of the Assessee and ....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 158
Condonation of delay - delay of 30 days - HELD THAT:- As on 22nd of April 2019 the learned CIT - A passed two orders in case of the assessee for same assessment year 2013 - 14 in two subject matters i.e. one was against the order passed u/s 143 (3) of the act and second was against the order passed u/s 154 of the act withdrawing MAT credit. On the legal advice, the assessee preferred an appeal, which was delayed by 30 days. According to us, delay was for the ‘sufficient cause’ and assessee did not derive any benefit by filing delayed appeal. Further, before ITAT, cause of justice must be served and pedantic approach should be abdicated. Therefore relying on the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of collector, land acquisition versus MST Katiji [1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] we condone the delay and proceed to ....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 157
Revenue recognition of the work completed to the returned income - return was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS - HELD THAT:- The assessee has recognized the revenue in Assessment Year 2015-16 onwards when the completion exceeded 30%. The reasons for the reduction in the estimated cost of project from ₹ 362 crores as on 31.03.2014 to ₹ 349.53 crores as on 31.03.2016 has been well explained at para 37 of the AS 7 which is mentioned elsewhere and the reason for reduction in the estimated cost so far as the case in hand is concerned is due to selling cost which was earlier taken at ₹ 25 crores which was reduced rs. 12.35 crores. It is pertinent to note that the assessment order for Assessment Year 2014-15 was filed on 29.09.2015. This means that the Assessing Officer was well aware of the revenue recognition in As....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 156
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) - Selling Expenses payments to non-resident agents - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the issue is same as have already been considered in earlier year by the Tribunal [2017 (9) TMI 820 - ITAT DELHI]. The parties are also same. Tribunal examined the issue in the light of agreement and material on record and found that the agent had their base situated in Abroad and moreover services were also rendered by them outside. Therefore, assessee is not required to deduct tax at source while making payments in question. A.O. in the assessment order has also made disallowance since in earlier year also of the same issue and no TDS have been deducted. Therefore, the facts being identical, no disallowance is required in the matter. We, therefore, following the Order of the Tribunal in the case of assessee for the A.Y. 2010-2011, set aside the Orders of the authorities below and delete the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee.
- 2020 (7) TMI 155
Depreciation on Non-compete Fee @25% - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the consistent view of the Tribunal [2019 (6) TMI 542 - ITAT MUMBAI] we direct the A.O. to allow deprecation on non- compete fee @ 25% by treating it as an intangible asset. Disallowance of depreciation on adoption of wrong actual cost of various fixed assets - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2019 (6) TMI 542 - ITAT MUMBAI] Co-ordinate Bench has restored this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer after placing reliance on the earlier order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2006-07. Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) - AO held that the investments have been made by utilizing borrowed interest bearing funds in the aforesaid subsidiary companies AND the investment is unrelated to the business of assessee - HELD THAT:-....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 154
TP Adjustment - AMP expenses - international transaction or not - Admission of additional evidence - HELD THAT:- As held in various decisions that if the evidence goes to the very root of the matter and essential for rendering substantial justice, then, the same is required to be admitted. Since, in the instant case, the ld.CIT(A) has forwarded those additional evidences to the AO for his comments in the shape of a remand report and since the additional evidence goes to the root of the matter and are essential for rendering substantial justice, therefore, we do not find any merit in the grounds raised by the Revenue for admission of such additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jubilant Foodwork Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 353 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that the ex....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 153
Slump sale of windmills - Short term capital gains - definition of undertaking is given in 2(42C) and section 2(19) - AO denied the claim of the assessee treating the gains of the windmill as long term capital gains u/s 50B of the Act and treated the same as gains on depreciable assets u/s 50 - whether the windmill constitutes separate undertaking or not? - HELD THAT:- Though the assessee has not separately maintained the books of accounts, separate ledger accounts are maintained and claiming deduction u/s 80IA separately for the income generated from the individual units each year. As per the Profit & Loss account, we observe that the assessee is computing profits separately, from wind mills and in a position to ascertain the income and expenditure separately for the windmills as well as for the assessee's business. Coordinate Be....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 152
Validity of assessment u/s 153A - Presumption of the documents seizued u/s 292C - assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O under Sec. 153C - pre-mended Sec. 153C applicability - whether A.O had wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Sec. 153C of the Act, despite the fact that no money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any books of accounts or documents belonging to the assessee were seized during the course of the search proceedings conducted - scope of amendment to section - HELD THAT:- It is the date of search that has to be considered to be the relevant date for the purpose of applying the amended provisions of Sec. 153C(1) of the Act. As such, in the case before us as the search proceedings were conducted on Cosmos group on 24.09.2014, therefore, the provisions of pre-amended Sec. 153C (i.e prior to amendment w.e.f 01....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 151
Reopening of assessment - treating Exempt Interest and Rental income under section 10(24) as Taxable income of the assessee - non providing the sufficient opportunity of being heard, without providing the copy of recorded reason for issuing the notice under section 148 - HELD THAT:- Assessee has not filed any return of income U/s 139(1) of the Act and the A.O. has initiated reassessment proceedings U/s 147/148 by issuing notice U/s 148 on the basis of AIR information showing the interest income received by the assessee from SBBJ. Exemption claimed by the assessee U/s 10(24) of the Act was denied by the A.O. and consequently, the entire income as shown in the return of income has been assessed to tax while framing the reassessment order on 23/12/2017. Since no body has appeared and attended the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), therefore,....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 150
Revision u/s 263 - bogus purchases - AO had not examined the genuineness of the purchase transaction - whether the PCIT is justified in setting aside the assessment order and directing the learned Assessing Officer to pass the assessment order de novo by calling relevant details, applying the relevant law in an objective manner? - HELD THAT:- PCIT perused the assessment order and assessment records and found that the assessment order dated 21/12/2017, passed by the learned Assessing Officer under section 147/143(3) was erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The impugned order does not show that the review of the assessment order dated, 21/12/2017 by the JCIT is the sole basis for exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT. Forward of the case by the JCIT is only triggered the process of....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 149
Revision u/s 263 - Case is selected for limited scrutiny u/s 143(2) - inadequate or no inquiry - Large other expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss A/c and Mismatch between income/receipt credited to P&L A/c considered under other heads of income and income from heads to income other than business/profession - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that under the limited scrutiny the Ld. A.O is required to keep his investigation and examination limited to the extent of the reasons for which limited scrutiny has been taken up. So his focus should be limited to the reasons but in such situation what is required from the A.O is to put best of his focus and pinpointed examination of information of the assessee so as to arrive at the correct income of the assessee. The file records should speak by itself that the A.O has given/delivered his b....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 148
Exemption of the indexed cost of acquisition and improvement - AO denied assessee claim of cost of improvement stating that he did not furnish any proof to substantiate cost of improvement on the sold property, Ld.AO also denied - HELD THAT:- Coming to quantification of construction/improvement carried out by assessee on plot purchased, there is mention of of some construction in the year 2005-06 being new building of 1400 sq.ft RCC roofing and shed 500 sq.ft with AC sheet roofing in valuation report dated 06/12/2012 by SPR Associates, placed at page 14 to Annexure 1 in paper book, The valuation report values new building constructed by assessee at ₹ 1,000/- per sq.ft and ₹ 800/- per sq.ft for shed, approximately valuing at 14 lakhs and 4 lakhs respectively. Further assessee has not been able to establish the balance amount be....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 147
Seizure - Smuggling of Gold - offences under sections 133 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the petitioners have committed very serious offence and the offences registered against the petitioners are clearly attracted. Moreover, they have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Further, there is apprehension that the accused persons would have continued in indulging in mobilising gold in huge quantity. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, and these criminal original petitions are dismissed.
- 2020 (7) TMI 146
100% EOU - shortage of imported materials and non-movable items - Import of silk yarn and grey silk fabrics without payment of duty availing relevant Notifications 53/2007 & 52/2003 - HELD THAT:- The officers of DRI have found in addition to the shortages detected by the auditors, shortages in respect of goods claimed to have been re-imported by the appellants in consequence to the rejection of the same by the foreign buyer. The appellants have argued that as the warehousing period is not over, the demand is premature. Whereas, we find that Learned Commissioner has confirmed the demand in terms of the Notification No. 53/97 dated 03.06.1997 and 52/03 dated 31.03.2003 as the goods were neither utilized within the prescribed period nor any extension was sought. It is found that among other conditions, Notification No. 52/2003 requires t....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 145
CIRP - Reimbursement of Compounding fees - Who is responsible for offence or compounding of offence under the Income Tax Act which was committed much before the initiation of CIRP proceedings - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the CIRP commenced vide order dated 7-8-2017 by the Adjudicating Authority under section 7 of the I&B Code and Mr. Savan Godiawala was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional and subsequently confirmed as Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor thereafter, vide order dated 27-8-2018 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Appellant Mr. Savan Godiawala was appointed as the Official liquidator of the Corporate Debtor i.e., Respondent No. 2. It is also admitted fact that on 31-3-2016 Income-tax Office, Shri Mandip ACIT, Income-tax Department filed complaint under section 276-B read with Section 278-B of the In....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 144
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - possession of apartment with stipulated time limit - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Respondent emphatically contends that it could not commence construction despite approval of the building plan dated 23rd July 2013, as the said approved imposed certain pre-conditions including but not limited to (a) obtaining grant of approval by Ministry of Environment and Forest, (ii) Fire Safety Approval before the commencement of construction. The Respondent obtained environmental approval on 12th December 2013, and the said approval reiterated the requirement for approval of the Fire Department. Therefore, the Respondent applied for Fire Safety Approval on 23rd October 2013, before starting any co....... + More
........
|
