Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property/ Transactions Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 367034 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 and Decision etc.

• 2022 (7) TMI 77
  
  Addition u/s 68 - Unexplained credit - scope of amended provisions of section 68 - onus to prove the source of source for the period prior to such amendment - genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the payer as well as even the source of the payer for making investment in the share capital of the appellant proved or not? - HELD THAT:- When assessing officer has examined the source of the source and asked the assessee to explain, then onus shifts on the assessee to explain the same. Thus, at the cost of repetition we state that credit-worthiness of the company is not established and the amount introduced as share capital is that of received from M/s Texworld Fashions Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sita Fabric Mills Pvt. Ltd and these two companies had no liability to repay the said unsecured loan. As far as the genuineness of the transacti....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 76
  
  Income accrued in India - sum received for advisory assistance for design and construction of hotel - Indo-US tax treaty - AO was of the view that the amount so received by the assessee is taxable in the hands of the assessee as fees of included services under article 12 of the US Tax Treaty and also as fees for technical services u/s. 9(1)(vii) - HELD THAT:- Amounts in question are not taxable in terms of the provisions of the applicable tax treaty and the findings of the co-ordinate bench still hold good in law, we have no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by the coordinate bench - CIT(A) was quite justified in the following a binding judicial precedent and no specific reasons have been pointed out to us either, for the said judicial precedent, which is binding on us as well, must be deviated from. In v....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 75
  
  Revision u/s 263 - reopening of assessment concluded against assessee - period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The principal Commissioner of income tax has been bestowed upon with a power under section 263 of the Act that he may call for and examine the records of any proceedings under this act. On such examination, if he considers that any 'order' passed in those proceedings by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he may revise such order as the circumstances of the case justify. He may enhance, modify or cancel the assessment order and may also direct the AO to cause examination of the details and further pass an order. But he can do so only after granting assessee an opportunity of hearing. However according to the provisions of sub-section (2), such order could be passed only within th....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 74
  
  Income from house property - notional rental income assessed in the hands of Appellant by the Assessing Officer in respect of area leased out by the Appellant to the Lessee - for Leased Property CIT(A) did not grant benefit of vacancy allowance for the period commencing from 19.10.2012 to 31.12.2012 - case of the Appellant that during the aforesaid period, despite making best efforts, the Leased Property could not be rented - HELD THAT:- In the case of Premsudha Exports (P) Ltd. [2007 (5) TMI 348 - ITAT MUMBAI] it has been held by the Tribunal that even the intention to let out the property would be sufficient to invoke provisions of Section 23(1)(c). The fact that Appellant intended to rent the Leased Property and made efforts for the same has not been doubted by the Assessing Officer or by the CIT(A). Accordingly we hold that the Appell....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 73
  
  Refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit - input and output supplies are same - Violation of Article 14, and Article 300A of the Constitution of India and Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or not - HELD THAT:- Section 54(3)(ii) of the CGST Act is absolutely unambiguous and does not carve out any exception that Input Tax Credit under the Inverted Tax Structure would not be applicable where the input and the output goods are the same. For the purpose of clarification, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs issued a notification dated 18.11.2019 para No.59 whereof reproduced infra, which makes it clear that the supplier who supplies goods at a concessional rate to companies involved in specified projects is entitled to refund under the inverted tax structure as per Cla....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 72
  
  Detention of vehicles - supply of hydraulic excavators for the purpose of sale within the State - HELD THAT:- There is no justification for the detention memo and show cause notice issued in respect of the aforesaid excavator and the same is quashed. The explanation set out in defence of the impugned order is that though the invoice undoubtedly contain the name of a registered dealer as recipient, the place of business set out does not tally with the place of business, as per the records of the Department - The Court, prima facie, appreciates the apprehension of the respondent in this regard as such a practice might well would lead to a situation where a registered dealer may lend his name for supply of material at various locations. Seeing as the matter is pending only at the stage of response to the show cause notice, it would be approp....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 71
  
  Seeking Bail - Pre-trial incarceration - fraud related to GST invoices - petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family - HELD THAT:- A perusal of para 6 of the status report filed by concerned Dy SP, it is revealed that the petitioner had confessed during his interrogation that a sum of Rs.10 lacs had fallen to his share. The petitioner is in custody since 26-01-2022, i.e., for five months. Given the period of incarceration viz-a-viz the amount fallen to the petitioner’s share, coupled with the petitioner being a senior citizen, further pre-trial incarceration might not be justiciable. In GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB [1980 (4) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT], a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 70
  
  Sublato fundamento cadit opus - Absence of proper show-cause notice - Interest liability - delay in furnishing GSTR-3B return - Liability to be imposed without any adjudication proceeding under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act which has been done admittedly or not - HELD THAT:- These writ petitions are fully covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of M/S NARSINGH ISPAT LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SRI AJAY KUMAR SINGH VERSUS UNION OF INDI A THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) , NEW DELHI, THE SPECIAL SECRETARY & MEMBER, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, GOODS & SERVICES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE, RANCHI COMMISSIONERATE, RANCHI, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX & GST,....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 69
  
  Seeking permission to petitioner to pay the GST arrears as demanded in the demand notice in 24 equal monthly instalments - HELD THAT:- This Court directs the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 27.04.2022 and pass appropriate orders as per Section 80 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 68
  
  Seizure order - articles belonging to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Learned Assistant Government Pleader under instructions state that as and when the details are retrieved from the aforesaid electronic gadgets which are yet to be returned by the respondent-authority, the same shall be released and handed over to the petitioner but not later than 31st July, 2022. The petitions would not survive and are disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 67
  
  Profiteering - purchase of fiats - it is alleged that the benefit of input tax credit had not been passed on to the Applicant No. 1 and Applicant No, 2 by way of commensurate reduction in prices - Contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - penalty - HELD THAT:- The Respondent has benefited from the additional ITC to the extent of 6.55% of the turnover during the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2019 amounting Rs.4,74,88,840/- It has been verified by the DGAP that the Respondent has already passed on benefit amounting to Rs.1,88,56,367/- to 772 homebuyers. Hence. the Authority finds that. the profiteered amount required to be returned/passed on by the Respondent is Rs, 2,86,32,474 (inclusive of GST @ 12%/ 8% on the base price) as is evident from the above Report dated 28 08.2020. Hence, the Authority holds that the provisions of Section 171....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 66
  
  Seeking of regular bail - availment of fraudulent ITC on the basis of goods less and bogus purchase invoices from nonexistent and fraudulent firms - fake/bogus firms - HELD THAT:- The allegations against the applicant-accused Gaurav Dhir pertains to being instrumental in filing of refund claims on behalf of the Firms, which were later on found to be fake and non-existing and for the said purpose he also issued CA certificate by forging signatures of co-accused Sunil Mehlawat and uploaded the same for the purpose of facilitating the said refund. The allegations qua the applicant-accused Sunil pertains to giving his UDIN and password to the co-accused Gaurav Dhir and also sharing his OTP with him for the said purpose. There is no dispute with the fact that the same was issued by the applicant-accused Gaurav Dhir by forging signatures of co-....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 65
  
  Validity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - As per revenue petitioner failed to reply and respond to the proceedings initiated - as argued adequate opportunity to the petitioner to respond to the draft assessment orders not given - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has shown disregard to the statutory notices issued by the Income Tax Department. The fact that the petitioner has not responded earlier and has sought for further time after giving a partial reply shows that the petitioner has not been diligent in complying with the time line set out by the respondents to complete the assessment - no merits in interfering with the impugned orders merely because the petitioner gave a partial reply to the two show cause notices dated 24.03.2022 and 29.03.2022. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to dismiss these writ petitions. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner in the manner known to law. WP dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 64
  
  Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice issued u/s new section 148A - Petitioner is aggrieved by issuance of impugned notice u/s 148 on the grounds that the same is barred by limitation - scope of statutory formalities under section 148A as prescribed by the Finance Act, 2021 which are applicable with effect from 1st April 2021 before issuance of notices under section 148 of the 1961 Act on or after 1st April 2021 - HELD THAT:- In considered view that this case clearly falls under the amended Act relating to proceedings under section 147 of the Act under which issuance of notice under section 148A of the Act is mandatory before issuing any notice under section 148 of the amended Act which has not been complied with in this case. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the order of this court in the case o....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 63
  
  Determination of income - adopting the profit margin of 8% on the turnover - case of the assessee was selected for “cash deposits in savings bank account(s) more than the turnover” - HELD THAT:- As AO in the order passed u/s 143(3) after analyzing the submissions made by the assessee found that the assessee has a turnover and thereafter adopting the profit rate of 8% determined the total income of the assessee - We find the CIT (A) in her ex-parte order sustained the additions made by the AO since nothing was brought before her to take a contrary view than the view taken by the AO - It is the submission for the assessee that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to explain his case before the CIT (A). Considering all deem it fit and proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT (A) with a....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 62
  
  Disallowance being amount of State Value Added Tax (VAT) paid for earlier years - Deduction u/s 80IB claimed - HELD THAT:- It is seen as an admitted position that the assessee separately maintained books of account for 80IB(10) projects and non-80IB(10) projects. Corresponding Profit and loss accounts were also drawn accordingly. There is no dispute that the amount of VAT was paid by the assessee during the year under consideration which pertained to earlier years. In fact, the question as to whether the VAT was payable by Builders was sub judice at the material time. Assessee became liable to pay VAT for earlier years - The assessee had not claimed any deduction on account of VAT in the computation of income for earlier years. It was only during the year under consideration that the assessee claimed such deduction on paying the VAT amoun....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 61
  
  Revision u/s 263 - revision of the assessee”s reassessment, proceedings for which were initiated in view of the discrepancies that came to the notice of AO in the assessee”s share trading transactions, found to be in order in assessment, was the claim for exemption u/s. 54EC - HELD THAT:- The matter in the instant case, as is apparent, is rather purely legal, so that there is no scope of any inquiry. As regards the different interpretation of s. 54EC by the ld. Pr. CIT, which is the basis of his order, we find no such limitation in the (first) proviso to sec. 54EC(1), which (limitation) rather stands introduced w.e.f. 01/04/2015, i.e., AY 2015-16 onwards, and which itself clarifies that no such limitation obtained prior thereto. Reference, with profit, in this context, be made to the decision in DIT vs. Mitsubishi Corporation ....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 60
  
  Disallowance of expenditure considering it to be a capital expenditure -CIT-A deleted the addition HELD THAT:- When the matter was carried before the Ld. CIT(A) he noted that in A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2014- 15 the addition made by the A.O. has been deleted by his predecessor. He also noted that for those years the order of Ld. CIT(A) has been upheld by the Tribunal. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) has been pointed-out by Revenue nor has Revenue placed on record any material to demonstrate that the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier years has been set aside, overruled or modified by higher judicial forum. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and thus dismiss the grounds of the Revenue.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 59
  
  Deduction u/s 80IB - whether freight charges recovered from the customers are eligible for deduction under section 80IB ? - HELD THAT:- As Assessee submitted before us the invoices of various parties containing GST number and CST number, on the invoices, in respect of transportation charges, (freight charges received from purchaser). The assessee submitted Form No.10CCB from a Chartered Accountant, balance sheet and profit and loss account - The fresh charges received from purchaser have been shown under the head “income from other sources”. The assessee also submitted the letter which was submitted before Assessing Officer, showing the details of freight income - The assessee also submitted the details of freight income - Therefore, these facts clearly prove that assessee’s claim is genuine and assessee deserves for ded....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 58
  
  Disallowance of legal and professional charges - HELD THAT:- Assessee was unable to furnish any supporting evidence to demonstrate that the amount was actually incurred for the purpose of business. Thus, in absence of any supporting evidence, disallowance, in our view, is justified Expenditure being payment made to contractor for building, designing and interior, while, assessee has claimed it as revenue expenditure, the departmental authorities have treated it as capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- From the description of the expenditure as per the material available on record, it appears to be expenditure incurred for creating an asset. No contrary material has been brought on record by assessee to demonstrate that by incurring the expenditure, assessee has not derived any enduring benefit. That being the factual position, we cannot accep....... + More

  ---

12345........ 18352