|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 320758 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 (3) TMI 1180
Non-reimbursement of differential tax amount - Scope the mutual agreement between the parties - situation post change in tax regime from Value Added Tax (VAT) to Goods and Service Tax (GST) with effect from 01.07.2017 - grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the introduction of the GST, petitioner is required to pay tax which was not envisaged while entering into the agreement - HELD THAT:- The petitioner shall make a comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority within four weeks from today ventilating the grievance. If such a representation is filed, the authority will consider and dispose of the same, in the light of the aforesaid revised guidelines dated 10.12.2018 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Odisha, as expeditiously as possible, preferably by 30.04.2020 - No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner till 30.04.2020. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1179
Provisional attachment of Current Bank Accounts - Jurisdiction to pass order - Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - time limitation of validity of order passed. Whether the Principal Additional Director General, DGGI and Additional Director General, DGGI are competent to pass orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017? - HELD THAT:- On a bare perusal of the CGST Act, 2017, it is absolutely clear that Section 3 equates the ‘Principal Commissioner of Central Tax’ as the “Principal Additional Director of Central Tax’ and the “Commissioner of Central Tax’ as the ‘Additional Director General of Central Tax’. One need not quibble with the wording as the meaning is plain and unambiguous. Furthermore, the fresh orders of provisional attachment has been passed by ‘Pri....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1178
Seizure of documents - proceeding under Section 70 of the OGST Act - grievance of the petitioner is that, since the documents called for by the OGST Authority has been seized by the CGST Authority, he is not in a position to supply the documents to the OGST Authority - HELD THAT:- This writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to apply for copies of the Documents required by him before the CGST authority within 15 (fifteen) days from today. If such an application is filed, the copies of the documents sought for shall be supplied within a period of three weeks from the date of his application. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1177
Liability to pay interest tax on the interest earned - HELD THAT:- Controversy involved in the present case would clearly stand covered by the decision of this court in the case of Asman Investment Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2018 (2) TMI 1966 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] Under the circumstances, it is not necessary to deal with the facts and contentions in detail. Question is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the appellant assessee. It is held that in the facts and under the circumstances of this case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant is liable to pay interest tax on the interest earned by it.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1176
Stay petition - applications for interim stay - Demand of the assessment as per the provisions of Section 220(6) - HELD THAT:- This court while dealing in such matters, have come across many writ petitions preferred by the assessees, seeking intervention of this court under Art.226 for issue for direction and taking up applications for interim stay filed along with pending appeals. Even this court was apprised that the Appellate Authority are taking up the appeals, considering the predicament of such assessees including the petitioner, the directions having been issued, for consideration of at least interim In the instant case appeal filed has not been taken up rather the interim application, in such circumstances availed the remedy under Sec.220(6) 1961 Act, which resulted into impugned order Ext.P7, the order prima facie do not reflect ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1175
Offence u/s 276(c) (2) - willful failure on the part of the petitioner for non payment of huge tax liability - accused has not paid the huge tax liability at the time of filing the return of income - intention from the petitioner for willful evading of payment of tax - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the documents, it is seen that the last date for filing the returns for the financial year 2012-2013 was on or before 05.08.2013. The respondent did not hand over the book of accounts seized from the petitioner ill 05.08.2013. Therefore, there is three months delay in payment of income tax and the petitioner filed return of income on 31.01.2014. Thereafter, it was returned on 31.03.2015 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹ 4,08,04,345/-. Thereafter, the petitioner paid tax as demanded by the respondent on 13.03.2018, for which the respo....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1174
Stay petition - recovery proceedings - Freezing of bank account - petitioner's appeal is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the petitioner was required to deposit 20% of the outstanding amount - HELD THAT:- As stated that applications were preferred on 10/2/2020 and 28/2/2020 informing the Commissioner of Income Tax that 20% of the outstanding demand has already been recovered by the Department and, therefore, the other bank accounts may not be freezed. Respondent Department has fairly stated before this Court that some breathing time be granted to the Department to decide the applications preferred in the matter. Resultantly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Department to pass appropriate order keeping in view the amount already recovered and the outstanding amount which ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1173
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - HELD THAT:- Legal requirement of making a clear cut reference to the applicable limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act, is not met by the Assessing Officer while initiating and levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer suffers from ambiguity in his mind. Considering the above referred binding judgments, we are of the view that such penalty is unsustainable in law legally. It is a settled legal proposition that AO is under obligation to specify the appropriate limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. In view of the above deliberation on this issue, without going into the merits of the case, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire penalty imposed by him. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed on legal issue.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1172
Income accrued in India - Claim of deduction u/s.90 - tax the salary income and the foreign allowance received by the assessee for services rendered outside India - Article 15(1) of India - Austria DTAA agreement and section 90 and section 5(2) of the Act - bar in law for receiving the money in India - HELD THAT:- From the facts of the case it is apparent that during the previous relevant to AY 2014-15, the assessee qualifies as a non-resident in India and as a tax resident in Austria. The salary and allowances are earned by the assessee in respect of employment rendered in Austria due to his foreign assignment. Hence, the first two conditions enumerated under Article 15(1) of the India-Austria DTAA stands satisfied. Therefore, the assessee’s claim of exemption in regard to his salary income as per the provisions of Article 15(1) of....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1171
Penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) - concealment of income - disclosure of on- money income was made only due to the survey action by the Department and the on-money income was not accounted for in the regular books of account of the assessee on the date of survey - HELD THAT:- Assessee had offered the amount as additional business income pursuant to survey operation for the ongoing year, which was duly incorporated in the books of accounts and in the regular return of income with taxes duly paid. Since the Assessing Officer was of the view that the “unaccounted income” of ₹ 3.8 crores was offered to tax by the assessee. As the same came to the surface only because of survey and that had there been no survey, then that amount could not have been brought to tax. Therefore, it was held that the ‘onmoney’ received was....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1170
Disallowance of interest expenditure u/s 36(l)(iii) - diversion of interest bearing fund - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the own fund of the assessee as on 31st March 2012 was excess to the amount of investment as evident from the Balance Sheet of the assessee - investment was made by the assessee for ₹ 2.43 crores out of its own funds despite the fact that the payment was made by the assessee out of the HDFC OD account as discussed above. In holding so we place our reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Amod Stamping (P.) Ltd. [2014 (7) TMI 753 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - we direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. Foreign Tax Credit claimed by the Appellant u/s 91 disallowed - whether rate of tax in foreign country needs to be de....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1169
Unexplained cash credits u/s.68 - Penny stock purchases - HELD THAT:- Additions made by Assessing Officer on account of detailed enquiries being carried out by Kolkata Investigation Directorate with regard to 84 penny stocks company as well as SEBI. The modus operandi involving operators, intermediaries and the beneficiaries have already been detailed in the investigation report prepared and disseminated by the Kolkata Investigation Directorate. Similar investigations were also conducted by the Directorate of Investigation at Mumbai and Ahmedabad. After thorough investigation, the Assessing Officer concluded in his order at paragraph Nos.4.8 and 4.9. Even before us, no new facts or circumstances have been placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities have also gone unrebutted, therefore, we find no reason to interfere ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1168
Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or not? - disallowance/addition on account of gratuity expenses - HELD THAT:- Regarding the claim of the assessee for the gratuity expenses, we note that the auditor in his tax auditor report has clearly mentioned that the impugned expenses are not allowable under the Act. But despite that the assessee did not make any disallowance in the computation of income and also contested for the deduction of the same till the learned CIT-A. It is transpired that there was the disclosure made by the tax auditor in the tax audit report furnished in form 3 CD. Thus it cannot be that the assessee deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Similarly, the AO got information about the disallowance of the provision for gratuity from the tax audit report only. AO has n....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1167
Revision u/s 263 - addition u/s 68 - reopening of assessment u/s 147 - HELD THAT:- We find the AO in the instant case has reopened the assessment on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing that assessee has received accommodation entry of ₹ 40 lacs from M/s. Sri Amarnath Finance Pvt. Ltd., a company controlled by Sh. Surinder Kumar Jain and Sh. Virender Kumar Jain who are known entry operators. AO during the course of assessment proceedings has called for information from the assessee who filed the requisite documents such as the ITR, bank statement, PAN number, confirmation etc. of the lender company. We find the AO had issued notice u/s. 133 (6) to M/s. Sri Amarnath Finance Pvt. Ltd. who responded to such notice and filed the requisite documents as called for by the AO. Force in the arguments advanced by ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1166
Disallowance of bad debts and advances written off - HELD THAT:- We find that this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2006-07 set aside the issue of disallowance on account of write off of advances - In CIT vs. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1950 (12) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] it was held that the burden of proving the necessary fact in order to entitle the assessee the claim exemption was on the assessee. Bad debts written off - we find that the issue is settled by Hon'ble Apex Course in the case of TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT]. It was held in the said case that writing off of advances in the aforesaid account is sufficient compliance for provisions of the Act. However, in the present case, it was noted that the assessee has not furnished names of the debtors to the Assessing Officer, hence we remit this issue ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1165
Reopening of assessment u/s 148 - no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued before the completion of assessment - HELD THAT:- DR has stated that no return was filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 and notice u/s. 143(2) is only mandatory, where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or in response to notice u/s. 148 whereas in this case no return was filed by the assessee and therefore, the contention of the Ld. DR requires verification at the level of the AO and thereafter, the AO may frame the assessment ‘Denovo’, as per law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee for which both the parties were agreed. The the assessee is at liberty to file any evidence in support of his claim before the AO. - Appeals filed by the Revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1164
Disallowance u/s.14A - AO noticed that assessee had borrowed money from various parties and interest thereof - HELD THAT:- We find that various Courts as well as Tribunals have taken a consistent view that when assessee has not made any claim for exemption of any income from the payment of tax, therefore, there cannot be any disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. In this respect, we also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. CIT [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that section 14A of the Act envisages that there should be an actual receipt of income which is not includible in total income. Since in the present case also, the assessee has not made any claim for exemption of any income from payment of tax, therefore while relying upon the decision(s) in the case of Cheminve....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1163
Deduction u/s.10AA - SEZ unit - Business of proprietary concern was taken over by the partnership firm - fresh approval from SEZ in respect of the partnership firm - CIT(A) noted that the deduction of section 10AA is unit specific and it is not dependent upon the ownership - HELD THAT:- Assessment unit is the same. There is change in the ownership from sole proprietorship to partnership. Earlier unit was under the proprietorship of Mr. Albert Kallati and same was taken over by the partnership firm namely Lorey Jewel wherein the partners were Mr. Albert Kallati and his daughter. Nature of business carried out from the unit remains same. Unit remains approved by the SEZ authority. No case has been made out the SEZ authorities have revoked approval. Similar issue has been dealt with by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of in the c....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1162
Disallowance u/s 40 (a)(i) - expenses were incurred towards payments made to a party M/s Hexaware - company failed in its obligations to deduct appropriate tax on such payments before making remittance - HELD THAT:- We agree with the proposition made on behalf of the assessee on first principles for reversal of disallowance carried out u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 in the assessment year 2014-15 on actual payment of withholding taxes. The proviso to sec.40(a)(i) of the Act enables the AO to allow deduction of expenses in computing the income of the previous year in which withholding tax have been actually paid by the deductor. Hence, having adjudicated the issue of allowability of expenses claimed in the year of deduction in favour of the assessee on first principles, we however, consider it as just and expedient....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1161
Bogus purchases - purchases made from grey market - HELD THAT:- Since assessee has already offered GP of 26% on the purchases and sales booked as per the P& Account which has not been tinkered with by the AO/Ld. CIT(A) and that as the assessee has also offered the cost of procuring the accommodation bills amounting to ₹ 56.75 lakhs @ 4% which comes to ₹ 2.33 lakhs in the IDS and offered tax for the undisclosed amount. So according to us, no more addition is warranted because when this IDS tax also is added to the GP of the assessee, then it will come to 30% GP. Therefore, no separate addition on the undisclosed amount of profit is warranted since it is not the case that AO/Ld. CIT(A) could unearth any hidden profit which was discovered as investments/cash/bullion etc. so in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the addition made is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee
........
|
