|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 651 Records
-
2023 (5) TMI 1436
Denial of deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) - interest income earned from a nationalized bank, namely, Oriental Bank Ltd., Kolhapur - HELD THAT:- Pune Tribunal in Sureshdada Jain Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit [2019 (4) TMI 682 - ITAT PUNE] has decided the question of availability of deduction u/s 80P on interest income by noticing that the Pune Bench in an earlier case of Shri Laxmi Narayan Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit [2019 (4) TMI 682 - ITAT PUNE] has allowed similar deduction.
In the said case, the Tribunal discussed the contrary views expressed in Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. [2015 (2) TMI 995 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] allowing deduction u/s. 80P on interest income and that of Mantola Cooperative Thrift Credit Society Ltd. [2014 (9) TMI 833 - DELHI HIGH COURT] not allowing deduction u/s.80P on interest income earned from banks.
Both the Hon’ble High Courts took into consideration the ratio laid down in the case of Totgar’s Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. [2010 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] No direct judgment from the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court on the point having been pointed out, the Tribunal in Shri Laxmi Narayan Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit (supra) preferred to go with the view in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. (supra). The position continues to remain the same before this Tribunal also. Respectfully following the precedent, the impugned order is overturned and the interest income earned from the deposits kept with nationalised bank is allowed as deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) - Assessee appeal allowed.
-
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 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 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 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 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 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 1414
'Commercial Establishments or Complexes' under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - As decided by HC [2017 (7) TMI 1474 - DELHI HIGH COURT] ITAT correctly held that the properties of Assessee at Connaught Circus, New Delhi and Sardar Mohan Singh Building, Connaught Lane, New Delhi were 'Commercial Establishments or Complexes' and therefore outside the purview of 'assets' under Section 2 (ea) (i) (5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (WTA)? -maintainability of appeal on low tax effect -
HELD THAT:- Revenue has stated at the Bar that the tax amount involved in the present Appeal is lower than the monetary limit fixed to prefer an Appeal before this Court. Therefore, he has requested to dispose of the present Appeals on the ground of low tax effect only keeping the question of law open.
In view of the above, both the Appeals stand disposed of on the ground of low tax effect only.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1413
Maintainability of rectification application beyond period of limitation - AR submitted that the language of section 254(2) is very clear which provides for filing of M/A within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed. Since in the present case, the original order disposing of appeal was passed on 31.01.2022, the prescribed limit got expired on 31.07.2022. Hence, the M/A filed by Revenue on 25.08.2022 is barred by limitation - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pacific Projects Limited [2020 (12) TMI 1085 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has made a detailed analysis of the provision of section 254(2) and categorically held that the time-limit of 6 months would have to be computed with reference to the actual receipt of order by the parties.
We are duty bound to follow the judicial discipline and obey the decision of Pacific Projects Limited (supra) which has clearly held that the time-limit has to be computed with reference to the date of receipt of order. No other decision of any High Court against this proposition held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court has been cited before us. Therefore the Revenue’s M/A filed within 6 months with reference to the date of actual receipt of order by Revenue is valid. Consequently, the objection raised by Ld. DR is rejected.
Reverting back to the merit of application, it is undisputably agreed by both sides that the tax effect was more than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the original appeal of Revenue was maintainable and could not have been dismissed by ITAT.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1412
Addition of excessive share premium u/s 56(2)(viib) - CIT(A) deleted addition holding that the assessee company received the consideration for issue of shares in F.Y. 2010-11 and the shares were allotted in F.Y. 2014-15 and hence the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) which have come into force from 01.04.2013 cannot be applicable - whether provisions of Section 57(2)(viib) are applicable in the year in which are allotted at a premium and not in the year in which the share application money was received? - HELD THAT:- In the case of the assessee, the share application money was received in A.Y. 2011-12 and allotted in the A.Y. 2015-16. During the intervening period, the assessee had every right to get their monies refunded and opt out of the share allotment process. Hence, it would be only logical when the share allotment has been finalized, the subscriber gets allotted the shares, the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib) needs to be invoked.
A taxing provision cannot be invoked even before the completion of a transaction fully and finally. We are in agreement with the judgment of ITAT in case of [2019 (2) TMI 1470 - ITAT DELHI] had held that share allotment date, not share application, is relevant date to trigger provisions of Section 56(2)(viib).
Whether the AO can change the method of valuation of unquoted shares under Rule 11UA of I.T. Rules 1962? - FMV of the unquoted share be the value as determined by the prescribed method or as substantiated by the assessee whichever is higher. The appellant has chosen to the first option i.e. value as per the prescribed method. The method of determining the FMV is given in Rule 11UA(2) of IT Rules 1962.
Rule 11UA(2) prescribes two methods - Book Value method and DCF method. However, the said rule also provides that the method to be adopted is left to the choice of the assessee. The AO can refuse the method of valuation after proving that the methodology resorted by the assessee is incorrect or not as per the standards laid down. The courts have held this view as is evident from the following observations in M/s Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (3) TMI 239 - DELHI HIGH COURT] The option to choose the method to be adopted to determine the FMV of unquoted shares is not with the AO but with the assessee. Decided against revenue.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1411
Deduction u/s 80IC - HELD THAT:- As could be seen from the above computation of total income, the deduction u/s 80IC is nil. Therefore, the issue is purely academic and, accordingly, the substantial questions of law (a) to (e) are left open as it does not arise for consideration in the case on hand.
Additional depreciation, it is not in dispute that the said issues squarely covered by the decision of Ramkrishna Forging Ltd. [2022 (7) TMI 1312 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] wherein the Court took into consideration the decision of Brakes India Ltd. [2012 (3) TMI 31 - ITAT, CHENNAI] which was followed in the case of Aztec Auto (P) Ltd. [2020 (9) TMI 541 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] Questions of law (f) and (g) are answered against the revenue.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1410
Validity of assessment order passed beyond period of limitation - period of limitation for making the order u/s. 92CA(3) - HELD THAT:- The period of limitation for passing the assessment order in the instant case expires on 31/03/2014. The time limit for passing the order u/s. 92CA(3A) is sixty days prior to the date on which the limitation referred to in section 153B of the Act expires. Thus, the limitation in the present case for passing the TP order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act expires on 29/01/2014. And since the TPO has passed the order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act on 30/01/2014, consequently, the order passed by T.P.O. u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act is time barred by one day and we hold it to be bad in law and so is non- est in eyes of law.
Assessment order (final) framed by AO on 27.05.2014 as barred by limitation - The expression two months used in clause 43(2) in the aforesaid circular to specify the period of limitation may not necessarily be equal to sixty days as specified in the Act. It is trite that the words/expressions used in Statute cannot be substituted in Explanatory notes or Board Circulars. If the limitation period is mentioned in days in the Act, the same expression has to be necessarily used in Circulars. Since delegated power of Board, cannot over-ride the Act passed by the Parliament/Legislature. Therefore, “Two months” as mentioned in Circular can be more or even less than sixty days. Therefore, expression stipulated in Act to calculate limitation period has to be scrupulously adhered to.
Assailing the action of AO in this case to frame draft assessment order, when the TPO order was bad in law, the Ld. AR pointed out that assessee is not qualifying as eligible assessee as per the definition given in sub-section (15) to section 144C of the Act.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1409
Validity of assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 - assessee did not submit any relevant verifiable sources for the investment made towards the acquisition of property - Assessee filed objections before the learned DRP and submitted certain documents before the learned DRP - DRP sustained the addition holding that there was no evidence to establish the date on which the loan amount was credited or the date of payment to the Lodha Group with reference to the bank statement.
HELD THAT:- Though the DR opposed the prayer of the assessee, there is no material to contradict the fact that there were insolvency proceedings against DHFL and ultimately PHFL took over the DHFL company and also that Bank of Baroda entered the shoes of DHFL in respect of this particular loan. Assessee procured the documents from PHFL and Bank of Baroda and submitted now in the shape of additional evidence. The case of the assessee is that if these documents are considered in the light of the contentions raised by the assessee, assessee has got a fair chance of winning the matter. In such situation, we are of the considered opinion that a meritorious case cannot be thrown out at the threshold, without giving an opportunity to the assessee that too when the assessee produced the documents from proper custody.
We find it just and proper to receive the additional evidence and to direct the learned Assessing Officer to verify and to take a plausible view - Appeal of assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1408
Belated payment of PF/ESIC u/s 36(1)(va) - provident contribution fund are payable to central government within 15 days of the close of every month - HELD THAT:- As relying on the case of Madras Radiators & Pressing Ltd. [2002 (12) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that the term “every month” in clause 58 of the Provident Fund Scheme should be read as month in which the wages were actually earned i.e. salary payable. Decided against assessee.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1407
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner has not disclosed the value of the property - HELD THAT:- As per Section 144B(1) of the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has every right for personal hearing by clicking the link. Petitioner has not availed the said opportunity. In the written submission, the petitioner has not sought for any personal hearing. But the fact remains that the respondents have taken a wrong valuation for the property.
In the assessment order there is no discussion of the two guideline values (one for Canal Street and another for Gandhi Nagar), but the assessment has taken only the guideline value of the Gandhi Nagar alone. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner should be granted one more opportunity.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned AO is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to grant personal hearing, by providing link to the petitioner and fixing the date and time. The petitioner is at liberty to produce records, especially, the guideline value provided by the concerned authorities.
........
|
9911796707
