|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1081 Records
-
2021 (5) TMI 1001 - ITAT DELHI
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Approval of the Addl. CIT had been received u/s 153D - Whether assessment order under section 153B(1)(b) read with Section 143(3) which is approved by the JCIT under section 153D could be revised by the Learned PCIT under section 263 ? - HELD THAT:- As search was conducted in the case of assessee on 21.07.2016. The A.O. proceeded to pass the assessment order under section 153B(1)(b) of the I.T. Act read with Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. It is also not in dispute that the A.O. at the assessment stage as well as after completion of the assessment discussed the matter in issue with the JCIT under section 153D of the I.T. Act and after getting approval of the JCIT under section 153D of the I.T. Act passed the impugned assessment order Dated 18.12.2018. We may note that the Order under section 143(3) read with Section 153B of the I.T. Act cannot be revised without revising the approval of the JCIT. It is also an admitted fact that the Learned PCIT did not revise the approval of JCIT given under section 153D - As decided in DR. ASHOK KUMAR, PROP. SS. NURSING HOME [2012 (8) TMI 429 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] tribunal has not committed any error of law in setting aside the order of CIT passed under Section 263 of Income Tax Act. Also see SHRI SURENDRA L. HIRANANDANI VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL – I MUMBAI [2018 (2) TMI 2025 - ITAT MUMBAI]
Since in the present case A.O. passed the impugned assessment order after getting approval from the JCIT under section 153D of the I.T. Act, therefore, following the above decisions, we are of the view that the Learned PCIT has no power to revised the Order under section 263 of the I.T. Act, without revising the approval of the JCIT under section .
Nature of receipt - compensation for non-delivery of the Villa under Builder-Buyer Agreement - Whether the compensation received by the Assessee is capital receipt of revenue receipt? - Whether such compensation is taxable under the Head "Capital Gains"? - whether amount received for giving-up that right would amount to capital receipt under section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act for relinquishment of the asset or extinguishment of any right therein.? - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the compensation received by the assessee on cancellation of the Builder-Buyer Agreement is capital receipt and taxable as capital gains. The view of the A.O. was, therefore, in accordance with Law and cannot be impeached by the Learned PCIT - we do not subscribe to the view of the Ld. D.R. that since no compensation is mentioned in the Builder-Buyer Agreement are to be payable as per agreement, then, the compensation is revenue in nature. It is devoid of merit as discussed above. We also do not agree with the submissions of the Ld. D.R. that payment of compensation was a colourable device to evade the taxes - D.R. referred to the emails and other papers seized from the computer of Shri Gaurav Jain, Ex-Employee of the M3M Group to support the case of the Revenue - we do not agree with such view and discuss this issue separately about the admissibility of the documents found from the computer of Shri Gaurav Jain. In view of the above findings, we hold that the compensation received by the assessee on account of cancellation of the Builder Buyer agreement is capital receipt and was rightly offered as capital gain in the return of income and correctly accepted by the A.O - Decided in favour of assessee.
Whether Arbitration Award is reasonable, based on material facts, final, binding and admissible in Income Tax proceedings? - HELD THAT:- Ultimately, it is a fact that there was a delay of 07 years in not handing-over possession of the Villas by the Builder to the Assessee. Therefore, the Arbitrator considering the entire material facts on record rightly considered that time was the essence of the agreement and that there is a contractual obligation of the Builder to pay compensation to the assessee on account of non-delivering of the Villas. Therefore, the Award is based on scientific examination of the relevant facts and as such the Learned PCIT was not justified in rejecting the Arbitration Award in the matter. It may be reiterated again that Arbitration Award is final and binding on the parties and enforceable as it were the Decree of the Court - No justification for the Learned PCIT to reject the Arbitration Award or to hold that agreement and transaction was coloured and sham. We, therefore, hold that Arbitration Award is final, binding and is admissible in Income Tax proceedings in the case of the assessee and compensation granted in the Award is reasonable which is ultimately paid to the assessee. Issue No. 3 is, therefore, decided in favour of the assessee.
Whether copies of documents, emails and Power Presentations found from Computer of Shri Gaurav Jain, Ex-Employee of M3M Group seized in search from his residence on 21.07.2016 is admissible in evidence? - HELD THAT:- As copies of the documents, emails and Power Presentations found from the Computer of Shri Gaurav Jain Ex-employee of M3M Group who is a third party. No incriminating material was found from the possession of the Assessee or MIPL. No corroborative evidence has been brought on record to support the material found from the Computer of Shri Gaurav Jain. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, same is not admissible in evidence. Further, no Certificate under section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act have been brought on record to prove the contents of copies of documents, emails and Power Presentation found from the Computer of Shri Gaurav Jain. Therefore, same is not admissible in evidence. The decisions relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the Learned PCIT considered an inadmissible evidence in proceedings under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the Order under section 263 is perverse. So, no planning is proved by the Revenue if at all for evading the taxes in the matter. Issue No. 4 is decided in favour of the assessee.
Whether compensation received by assessee is taxable as income under section 2(24)(i)(vi) and (iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 OR under section 2(28A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? - HELD THAT:- Since the Order under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dealt with these Sections which are not covered by the show cause notice issued to the assessee, therefore, it is not permissible to decide the issue against the assessee. It may also be noted that we have already held on Issue No. 2 that the compensation received by the assessee is capital in nature on which assessee has correctly declared capital gains, therefore, it is not taxable in the hands of the assessee as income as is held by the Learned PCIT. Issue No. 5 is decided in favour of the assessee.
Whether the Learned PCIT was justified in invoking the jurisdiction under section 263? - HELD THAT:- As already held that view of the A.O. that compensation received by assessee on cancellation of the BBA is capital receipt and liable for capital gain is in accordance with Law and is sustainable and if the Learned PCIT did not agree with the same view, the same is not revisable under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Learned PCIT is not entitled to re-appreciate the same evidences and material nor come to a different conclusion. The Learned PCIT did not make any independent enquiry as to how the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. The Learned PCIT has not pointed-out as to how there is an incorrect application of Law or incorrect application of facts. It is also not explained as to how there was non-application of mind on the part of the A.O. and as to how the compensation is taxable as revenue receipt when it is inextricable link to the allotment of Villa. The Learned PCIT has referred to the rates of sales unofficially obtained from some broker in the notice. These are not relevant being unauthenticated and based on no evidence. Inadequacy of consideration in the agreement would not make the contract void or voidable under Indian Contract Act. In notice, report of Registered Valuer Mr. M.N. Bhagat in October, 2012 to the Investigation Wing for change in area/construction etc., already on record and considered in A.Y. 2013-2014 which have become final. Considering the facts of the case above, it is clear that conditions of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act are not satisfied in the present case.
Whether cryptic Order of the assessment can be revised under section 263? - HELD THAT:- In the present case the issue based on BBA was coming-up from A.Y. 2010-2011 and with reference to Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the issue have been examined by the Revenue Department in A.Ys. 2010-2011 and 2013-2014 and assessment orders have been passed under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Those Orders have become final and cannot be commented upon in the present proceedings. The copies of the show cause notice, Order-Sheets, replies submitted by the assessee along with documentary evidences in the proceedings for the assessment year under appeal are filed in the Paper Book which shows that A.O. examined the issue in detail after conducting detailed enquiry. The A.O. also discussed the matter in issue with his Administrative Senior Officer i.e., JCIT. Since the compensation was received on account of cancellation of the BBA, therefore, A.O. accepted the claim of assessee of capital gains. The entire material on record clearly show that A.O. has applied his mind and even if the details of enquiry are not mentioned in the assessment order would not make the assessment order to be cryptic or liable for revision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment order is also passed after getting approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, unless the same is also revised, the assessment order cannot be revised by the Learned PCIT. In view of the above, issue No. 7 is decided in favour of the assessee.
Whether where an approval under section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not valid, then the assessment order under section 153B/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is vitiated, so same cannot be revised under section 263? - HELD THAT:- A.O. was justified in passing the assessment order Dated 18.12.2018 accepting the returned income because his view was in accordance with Law that compensation received by assessee on account of cancellation of BBA through Arbitration Award is capital receipt and liable for tax as capital gain. Therefore, the Learned PCIT was not justified in invoking the jurisdiction under section 263.
-
2021 (5) TMI 1000 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Waiver of demurrage and detention charges on the goods - one time relaxation, as per Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003 - HELD THAT:- Since the issue is pending with the first respondent on the entitlement of the petitioner for one time relaxation, as per Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003 and the order passed by this Court in M/S. DIAMOND NUTS, VERSUS THE PLANT PROTECTION OFFICER (E) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GROUP I) TUTICORIN, CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION [2021 (6) TMI 265 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], directing to the first respondent to fumigate the goods through an accredited treatment provider, by providing one time relaxation to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Plant Quarantine (Regulations of Import into India) Order, 2003, this writ petition is closed at present, with liberty to the petitioner to renew this application, pursuant to the orders of the first respondent in M/S. DIAMOND NUTS.
Petition closed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 999 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment of Bank Accounts - jurisdiction of proceedings initiated against the petitioner - heavy cost for the harassment caused to petitioner -HELD THAT:- This court notices that the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition in 2017 which was originally placed before the Division Bench wherein the order in RAMESHWAR SHARMA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [2017 (9) TMI 1953 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] was passed on 20.09.2017.
The prayer clause of the writ petition shows that the petitioner had prayed for quashing of the order which his bank account was free zed and secondly he has also prayed to declare the proceedings initiated against the petitioner as without jurisdiction and ultra wires of the Act of 2002 - While passing the order on 20.09.2017, the Division Bench noticed that the saving account had already been seized and so far as apprehension of coercive steps are concerned the petitioner was left free to move appropriate application subsequently.
The preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding maintainability of the second stay application that it goes beyond the scope of the writ petition, is found to be without basis. The petitioner has by way of the second stay application prayed in the proceedings which have now been initiated from the proceedings arising out if the ECSI case No.2040 for which the writ petition is pending before this Court, in view thereof, this Court would not oust the petitioner’s second stay application - With regard to the new submission of learned Additional Solicitor General with regard to the two parallel remedies this court finds that presenting oneself before the Adjudicating Authority which is department itself, cannot be said to be an alternate remedy available to an individual.
The contention of learned ASG is that the respondents have no knowledge about the contents of the case filed by Anil Kumar Gadodia or of the order passed by the Supreme Court way back on 06.05.2021 cannot be accepted to be correct and truthful - Since the petitioner as well as Anil Kumar Gadodia are commonly arrayed as defendants in the complaint filed under Section 5 (5)of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. I would respectfully follow the order passed by the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Gadodia’s case and restrain the respondent/s from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner in the meanwhile as directed by the Supreme Court.
The writ petition of Anil Kumar Gadodia has been directed to be listed before the Supreme Court on 19.07.2021, list this case thereafter on 26.07.2021.
-
2021 (5) TMI 998 - SUPREME COURT
Seeking leave to withdraw this Writ Petition with liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum - HELD THAT:- The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
-
2021 (5) TMI 997 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Suspension of petitioner who was serving as Assistant Registrar in Tamil Nadu Medical Council - failure to produce basic qualification certificate - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that due to current Covid-19 situation and the other difficulties expressed by the petitioner herein in getting his S.S.L.C certificate from the 3 rd respondent, the last date to submit his written submission has to be extended so as to give him fair opportunity to defend his case. At the same time, the document which are sought by the petitioner herein vide letter dated 12.04.2021, whether it is relevant or not, it is for the delinquent to decide and not the management. Therefore, whatever documents sought by the petitioner has to be permitted for perusal by the petitioner, provided it is available with the 1 st respondent.
The time fixed by the 2 nd respondent/Registrar, Tamil Nadu Medical Council under impugned communication dated 19.05.2021 is extended upto 30.06.2021.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (5) TMI 996 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Recovery of amount without of issuance of SCN - Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Issue notice of the writ petition as well as stay application, returnable within eight weeks - In the meanwhile, the goods lying with the respondent/s shall be released subject to submitting a surety bond of the equivalent amount of the value of the goods by the petitioner. The petitioner shall not be insisted for submitting the Bank guarantee.
List this case again in fourth week of July, 2021.
-
2021 (5) TMI 995 - ITAT PUNE
Exemption u/s 11 - Registration application made u/s 12AA denied on the ground of non-submission of certain details - Denial of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On one hand the assessee contends that the provisions of principles of natural justices were not followed by the Department and the opportunity of hearing was not properly accorded to the assessee in this case and on the other hand, the facts demonstrate as from the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption) that he could not arrive at proper satisfaction as regards the genuineness of the activities of the trust since the relevant details as called for by the Ld. CIT (Exemption) were not uploaded in the ITBA portal by the assessee.
The provision of section 12AA of the Act mandates that the satisfaction has to be arrived at by the Ld. CIT (Exemption) before granting any registration under the said provisions. The satisfaction can only be arrived at once all the relevant details are placed before him - one more opportunity should be given to the assessee and accordingly, we set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT (Exemption) and restore the matter back to his file for re-adjudication while complying with the principles of natural justice - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2021 (5) TMI 994 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Provisional attachment of Bank Accounts - HELD THAT:- Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks time to get instructions from the Petitioner in that regard.
Post the matter along with W.P. No. 2723 of 2021 on 12.05.2021.
-
2021 (5) TMI 993 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Addition being the amount of PF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va) - Delayed employees contribution of PF and ESI - as per assessee amount remitted to the concerned accounts before the due date of filing the return of income - HELD THAT:- As decided in ELICO LIMITED case [2020 (11) TMI 698 - ITAT HYDERABAD] no disallowance could be made in respect of employees contribution of PF and ESI if the same are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and delete the addition made by the AO. The appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 992 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reversal of locking the Input Tax Credit - operation of the appellate order, by which reversal is made - submission is that the Revisional Authority has passed the order impugned without application of mind, merely paraphrasing the words of the statute with no reference to the facts of the case, or other material on record to reach his conclusion in favour of passing an interim order of stay - violation of principles of natural justice.
HELD THAT:- The State shall clarify in its instruction the aforesaid fallacy urged on behalf of the petitioner.
Lay this matter as fresh again on 20.05.2021 before the appropriate Bench.
-
2021 (5) TMI 991 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Waiver of demand notice - glitches in the operation of the Faceless Assessment Scheme as submitted by petitioner - request for hearing or the detailed reply rejected - HELD THAT:- As ordered Pending hearing and final disposal of the Petition, the operation of the assessment order passed under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144B of the Act dated 23rd April 2021 and the notice of demand in Form No. 156 dated 23rd April 2021 as well as the show cause notice under Section 274 read with Section 270A and 271AAC of the Act dated 23rd April 2021 are stayed.
Respondents to file their reply on or before 18th June 2021, with copy to the other side.Rejoinder, if any, to file on or before 25th June 2021, with copy to other side.
List the matter to 30th June 2021.
-
2021 (5) TMI 990 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Waiver of demand notice - glitches in the operation of the Faceless Assessment Scheme as submitted by petitioner - request for hearing or the detailed reply rejected - SCN as why the assessment should not be completed as per the draft assessment order - Petitioner responded to the same and sought opportunity of hearing and requested for adjournment in order to respond to the draft assessment order due to lock-down - despite that order of assessment notice of demand has been raised - HELD THAT:- Ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (b) is granted till the next date, which reads thus :-
“b. pending the hearing and fnal disposal of the present Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the effect, implementation and operation of the impugned order and the Notice of Demand (Exhibits: “A” and “B” hereto) and this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct that no coercive steps be taken against the Petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order and/or the Notice of Demand;” - Stand over to 21/06/2021.
-
2021 (5) TMI 989 - ITAT HYDERABAD
TP Adjustment - arm’s length price ‘ALP’ adjustment of ₹ 1,20,78,616/- qua interest on receivables involving its overseas Associated Enterprise ‘AEs’ - HELD THAT:- We find no merit in the instant argument since such a short term deposit cannot be taken at par with an international transaction u/s.92B of the Act since the latter involves foreign currency and overseas market conditions. In addition to this, learned lower authorities have also not adopted any comparable in the very segment as well so as to come to the conclusion that the assessee’s receivables in case of overseas AEs involved more than the market practice of reasonable time period. We keep in mind all these clinching aspects and direct the TPO to delete the impugned ALP adjustment in issue. The assessee’s former substantive ground stands accepted in the above terms
Addition u/s 43B - disallowance pertaining to employees provident fund - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that learned lower authorities held that the same had to be deposited before the due date prescribed in the corresponding statute than the due date for filing Section 139(1) return. The Revenue’s case in tune thereof relies on Section 36(va) read with explanation thereto that it is not Section 43B but the former provision which is applicable in such an instance.
We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing stand. We take note of the explanatory memorandum to the Finance Act, 2021 proposing amendment in both Section 36(va) as well as Section 43B by inserting corresponding Explanations that although the impugned employees provident fund comes under the former provision only, the same is applicable from 01-04-2021 onwards. Meaning thereby that the legislature itself has condoned the impugned default before 01-04-2021. We thus delete the impugned employees provident fund disallowance for this precise reason alone. Assessee’s appeal is allowed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 988 - SUPREME COURT
Seeking deferment of collection of school fees including reduction of fees - violation of Fundamental rights - violative of rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution or not - whether the impugned enactment stands the test of reasonableness and rationality and balances the right of the educational institutions (private unaided schools) guaranteed to them under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution in the matter of determination of school fees? - HELD THAT:- The Act of 2016 has been enacted by the State legislature. It was enacted as it was noticed that the earlier enactment on the selfsame subject did not include provision of appeal against the orders of fee determination by the Fee Determination Committee. It was also noticed that there are large number of private schools (approximately 34,000) and a single fee determination committee cannot determine the fee of such schools in a proper manner in time. For that reason, the Act of 2016 came into being to provide for regulation of collection of fees by schools in the State of Rajasthan and matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. It extends to the whole of the State of Rajasthan and applies to both aided and unaided schools.
The appellants having failed to substantiate the challenge to the validity of the relevant provisions of the Act of 2016, must also fail with regard to the challenge to Rules 3, 4, 6 to 8 and 11 of the Rules of 2017.
The fee structure determined by the school Management can be altered by the Adjudicatory Authorities only upon recording a negative finding on the factum of amount claimed towards school fees relating to particular activities is an essential expenditure or otherwise; and that the fee would be in excess of reasonable profit being ploughed back for the development of the institution or otherwise. The recovery of excess amount beyond permissible limit would result in profiteering and commercialisation. In our opinion, therefore, even Rule 11 is a relevant and reasonable provision and does not impact or abridge the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
An uniform direction of deduction of 15 per cent of the annual school fees in lieu of unutilised facilities/activities and not on the basis of actual data schoolwise, is granted.
The conclusion of the High Cour is upheld, in rejecting the challenge to the validity of the impugned Act of 2016 and Rules framed thereunder. However, we do so by reading down Sections 4, 7 and 10 of the Act in the manner indicated in paragraphs 28; 37/38 and 42 respectively of this judgment. These provisions as interpreted be given effect to, henceforth, in conformity with the law declared in this judgment.
Application disposed off.
-
2021 (5) TMI 987 - SUPREME COURT
Seeking release of prisoners on interim bail/parole based upon the situation in the concerned State - prevailing COVID-19 situation - seeking direction to State Legal Service Authorities to strictly adhere to the Standard Operating Procedures of National Legal Service Authorities on the functioning of the Undertrial Review Committees - seeking direction to High Powered Committees/ High Courts to identify and release the vulnerable categories of prisoners on an urgent basis - seeking direction to DG Prisons to publish the prisonwise occupancy rates of UTPs/ Convicts/Detenues on their website monthly - seeking direction to High Powered Committees / monitoring teams to prioritise healthcare in prisons and scrutinise the prisonspecific readiness and response plans as directed by this Hon'ble Court - seeking direction to State Governments/ Union Territories to undertake a vaccination drive in the prisons across their respective States/ Union Territories.
HELD THAT:- This Court, being the sentinel on the qui vive of the fundamental rights, needs to strictly control and limit the authorities from arresting accused in contravention of guidelines laid down by this Court in ARNESH KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR [2014 (7) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT] - the rapid proliferation of the virus amongst the inmates of congested prisons is a matter of serious concern. The High Powered Committees constituted by the State Governments/Union Territories shall consider release of prisoners by adopting the guidelines (such as inter alia, SOP laid down by NALSA) followed by them last year, at the earliest. Such of those States which have not constituted High Powered Committees last year are directed to do so immediately. Commissioner of Police Delhi shall also be a member of the High Powered Committee, Delhi.
Due to the immediate concern of the raging pandemic, this court has to address the issue of decongestion - the High Powered Committee, in addition to considering fresh release, should forthwith release all the inmates who had been released earlier pursuant to our order 23.03.2020, by imposing appropriate conditions. Such an exercise is mandated in order to save valuable time.
It is directed that those inmates who were granted parole, pursuant to our earlier orders, should be again granted a parole for a period of 90 days in order to tide over the pandemic - lastly, the fight against the pandemic is greatly benefitted by transparent administration. In this regard, our attention was drawn to example of Delhi, wherein the prison occupancy is updated in websites. Such measures are required to be considered by other States and should be adopted as good practice.
Overcrowding of prisons is a phenomenon, plaguing several countries including India. Some prisoners might not be willing to be released in view of their social background and the fear of becoming victims of the deadly virus. In such extraordinary cases, the authorities are directed to be considerate to the concerns of the inmates. The authorities are directed to ensure that proper medical facilities are provided to all prisoners who are imprisoned. The spread of Covid19 virus should be controlled in the prisons by regular testing being done of the prisoners but also the jail staff and immediate treatment should be made available to the inmates and the staff. It is necessary to maintain levels of daily hygiene and sanitation required to be improved. Suitable precautions shall be taken to prevent the transmission of the deadly virus amongst the inmates of prisons.
Appropriate steps shall be taken for transportation of the released inmates of the prisons, if necessary, in view of the curfews and lockdown in some States.
Application allowed.
-
2021 (5) TMI 986 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Notice is accepted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as by learned counsel for respondent No.2 and they seek time to file counter-affidavit to the present petition - Let needful be done within four weeks with advance copy to the other side. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Renotify on 16.08.2021.
-
2021 (5) TMI 985 - DELHI HIGH COURT
There is neither an appearance on behalf of the respondents, nor have the respondents filed a counter-affidavit - Counter-affidavit, if any, will be filed within the next five weeks, albeit, subject to payment of cost.
Proof of cost will be placed on record - List the matter on 25.08.2021.
-
2021 (5) TMI 984 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Faceless assessment u/s 144B - No personal hearing provided - Whether any standards, procedures and processes have been framed by revenue in terms of sub-clause (h) of clause (xii) of Section 144B(7)? - HELD THAT:- Since the statute itself makes the provision for grant of personal hearing, the respondents/revenue cannot veer away from the same. See RITNAND BALVED EDUCATION FOUNDATION (UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION OF AMITY GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS) [2021 (6) TMI 17 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
We are of the opinion that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order, dated 23.04.2021, as also the consequential notices, issued under Section 156 and 270A of the Act, are set aside.
Liberty is, however, given to the respondents/revenue to proceed from the stage of the show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order.
Respondent/revenue will grant a personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner. The concerned officer will conduct the hearing via video-conferencing mechanism. For this purpose, prior notice, indicating the date and time, will be served on the petitioner, through its registered e-mail. Respondent/revenue will, after hearing the authorized representative of the petitioner, pass a fresh order, albeit, as per law.
-
2021 (5) TMI 983 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Petitioner awes certain amount to the Government of India on account of settlement of certain dispute which was resolved under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - petitioner approached the authorities for allowing him to pay the due amounts in instalments, which, however, did not elicit any positive response from the authorities - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that it may not necessary to dwell on the aggregate amount the petitioner is supposed to pay, except the amount which the petitioner has admitted and willing to pay in this petition. As regards other liabilities, if any, it is a matter to be considered by the authorities on its own merit in accordance with law. However, as far as the amount of ₹ 12,36,844.40/- is concerned which is the subject matter of consideration in this petition, the petitioner shall pay the aforesaid admitted amount of ₹ 12,36,844.40/- within 45 days from today. As regards the dues mentioned by Mr. Keyal, it is for the petitioner to approach the competent authority for payment and in instalments, if the authorities agree.
It is made clear that till payment of the aforesaid amount of ₹ 12,36,844.40/- within the aforesaid 45 days, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner as regards the said amount.
Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (5) TMI 982 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Validity of order of Magistrate in which he has ordered for police investigation after taking cognizance - it is alleged that the Magistrate had the power to call for police investigation, but he had previously not taken cognizance of the offences - prime contention of the petitioner is that the Magistrate having previously taken cognizance of the offences, cannot revert to calling for police investigation - Non-payment of GST - HELD THAT:- The Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences disclosed in the complaint. His action of perusal of the case record which led to his decision to examine the witnesses under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. at a later date clearly establishes application of mind on his part onthe allegations made in the complaint and which led to his making up his mind about the requirement of carrying out examination under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Had the Magistrate perused the case records and was of the opinion that before deciding to take cognizance of the offence it was necessary to call for the police investigation, it was open for him to do so - The very fact that after perusal of the case record he was persuaded that there is a requirement of examination under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, would establish that he had already taken cognizance of the offence. It is well settled that the stage of examination of witness under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. would not arise before taking cognizance by the Magistrate. Thus, these two twin facts namely, the perusal of the case record by the Magistrate and the decision that he arrived on upon perusal of the case records of examining the witnesses under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. would leave no manner of doubt that on 27.11.2020 itself he had taken cognizance of the offences. It was thereafter not open for him to change the course and revert back to the initial option of requiring police investigation and calling for police report. - Unfortunately, on 02.01.2021 this is precisely what he did.
In the said order, he has recorded that after hearing the learned P.P. and after perusal of the complaint, he was of the opinion that before taking cognizance, the matter may be investigated by the police. In the process, the learned Magistrate lost sight of the fact that the stage of taking cognizance had already been crossed on 27.11.2020 itself.
This does not put an end to the complaint lodged before the concerned Magistrate, who shall proceed further in accordance with the law from the stage of taking cognizance of the offences disclosed - the impugned order dated 02.01.2021 is quashed - Petition allowed.
........
|
