|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 571 Records
-
2021 (1) TMI 1313
Revision u/s 263 - as per CIT inadequate inquiries were made by AO on payments made to players on winnings from lotteries/crossword puzzles and taxes to be withheld thereon - As argued inadequate inquiries were made by the learned AO on payments made to players on winnings from lotteries/crossword puzzles and taxes to be withheld thereon - HELD THAT:- It has been settled by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitabh Bachhan [2016 (5) TMI 493 - SUPREME COURT] that such an action is permissible to the Commissioner provided sufficient opportunity is given to the assessee.
From the records available before us and the order of learned Commissioner, it is not discernable whether proper opportunity in this regard was given to the assessee. Now, the issue is whether this is fatal to the order of revision ? Another concomitant issue is when the learned Commissioner has not given the opportunity to the assessee and has consequently not examined the assessee’s response, should the Tribunal fill-in the gap and give a finding that the Assessing Officer has duly examined the issue on the basis of document said to have been filed before Assessing Officer.
When the CIT has not examined the issue, the Tribunal should not jump ahead and examine the issue merely on the basis of document said to have been filed before the Assessing Officer without any indication as to whether the Assessing Officer has verified the correctness of the averments. That merely keeping the document on record, without carrying out necessary investigation which are per se required to verify correctness of the averment would lead to an error, in the sense that he has failed to carry out the requisite inquiry which can be rectified in revision.
Accordingly, we are of the opinion that this order of Commissioner is liable to be set aside to his file for fresh consideration as directed to examine the issue afresh after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.
In giving the above said direction we draw support from the decision of Kapurchand Shrimal [1981 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] for the proposition that it is the duty of the appellate authority to correct the errors in the orders of the authorities below and/or remit the matter for reconsideration unless prohibited by law. In this regard, we note that there is no provision in law prohibiting us to remit the matter back to the learned Commissioner on the facts and circumstances of the case.
In our considered opinion, the above submission of the assessee’s counsel is not sustainable. We do not find that the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, by any stretch of imagination, proposes that matters cannot be remanded by the ITAT to the level of Commissioner of income tax. Hence, this limb of argument of the learned counsel of the assessee is rejected.
Thus we set aside this order passed under Section 263 to the file of the learned Commissione to decide the issue afresh giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard. Appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1302
Cognizance/summoning order u/s 276C (2) r.w.s. 278E of I.T.Act - application u/s 482 Cr.P.C praying to quash the Criminal Complaint - HELD THAT:- As applicant submits that he does not want to press the principal prayers made in this application. He is ready to submit to the jurisdiction of the court, seek bail and accept all the conditions which this Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The only prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant is for expeditious disposal of his bail application.
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, the prayer, so far as it relates to seeking quashing of the proceedings as well as summoning order, stands refused.
However, it is directed that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the court below within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. [2004 (10) TMI 635 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. [2009 (3) TMI 1042 - SUPREME COURT]
For a period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. However, in case, the applicant does not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of
-
2021 (1) TMI 1298
Exemption u/s 11 - denying the benefits of Section 11 and 12 by invoking proviso to Section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) - accumulation of 15% - deduction in the fixed assets - HELD THAT:- All the three questions, referred to above, as proposed by the Revenue are no longer res integra in view of the judgment of this High Court rendered [2020 (8) TMI 600 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]
This tax appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1296
Rate of tax applicable to domestic companies and/ or co-operative banks - provisions of Article 26 (Non-discrimination) of the India-France tax treaty - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of a recent order of the Tribunal passed in the assessee‟s own case for A.Y. 2013-14 [2019 (4) TMI 2099 - ITAT MUMBAI], we find, that the Tribunal by relying on its earlier order for A.Y. 1996-97 [2013 (8) TMI 1173 - ITAT MUMBAI] had therein concluded that the tax levied at a higher rate in the case of a foreign company is not to be regarded as a violation of the non-discrimination clause. Thus we respectfully follow the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Ground of appeal No. 1 is dismissed.
Data processing fees paid by Indian branch offices of the Appellant to its Singapore branch - HELD THAT:- As the facts in context of the aforesaid issue under consideration remains the same as was there before the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case for A.Y. 2013-14 [2019 (4) TMI 2099 - ITAT MUMBAI] therefore, we respectfully follow the view therein taken. Accordingly, we herein direct the A.O to delete the impugned addition.
Income chargeable to tax - Interest payable/paid by the Indian branch offices of the Appellant to the head office and its other overseas branches - HELD THAT:- The issue as to whether or not interest payable/paid by the Indian branch offices of the assessee to its head office and its other overseas branches would be chargeable to tax had been looked into by the various benches of the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case for the aforementioned years. On a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal in the assessee‟s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 [2019 (7) TMI 1076 - ITAT MUMBAI] the Tribunal following the order in the case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation [2012 (4) TMI 80 - ITAT MUMBAI] and the orders of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the preceding years, had concluded, that the interest income received by the assessee from its Indian branch being a payment made to self was thus not taxable in the hands of the assessee
Accordingly, we herein hold that the interest income received by the assessee from its Indian branch office being a payment made to self would not be taxable in the hands of the assessee.
Short credit of taxes deducted at source (TDS) - HELD THAT:- As the aforesaid issue would require verification of records, we, therefore, restore the matter to the file of the A.O with a direction to verify the aforesaid claim of the assessee. In case the claim of the assessee is found to be in order then credit for the deficit amount of tax deducted at source shall be allowed by the A.O as per the extant law. Needless to say, the A.O shall in the course of the “set aside” proceedings afford an opportunity of being heard to the assessee who shall remain at a liberty substantiate his aforesaid claim. The Ground of appeal No. 6 is allowed for statistical purposes.
Levying interest u/s 234A - return of income was filed by the Appellant within the prescribed due date for filing the return of income - HELD THAT:- We find that it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the assessee company had e-filed its return of income for the year under consideration i.e A.Y. 2014-15 vide e-filing acknowledgment No. 429259941291114. In the backdrop of the claim of the ld. A.R that the assessee had filed its return of income well within the prescribed time limit, therefore, no interest u/s 234A was liable to be saddled upon it, we herein restore the issue to the file of the A.O for making necessary verification. In case, the assessee is found to have filed its return of income within the stipulated time period contemplated in sub-section (1) to Sec. 139 then, no interest u/s 234A of the Act shall be imposed on it. Ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1295
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - bogus purchases - AO had disallowed 12.5% of the alleged non-genuine purchases which has been sustained by Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD THAT:- The fact that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases before the Departmental Authorities is very much evident. Even, before the Tribunal the assessee had not filed any evidence to prove that purchases, indeed, were made from the declared source. In such circumstances the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer @ 12.5% of the non genuine purchases is reasonable considering the view expressed by the Tribunal in similar nature of cases. Therefore, we not inclined to interfere with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue.
Validity of issuance of notice u/s 148 - As it is very much clear, initially the returns of income filed by the assessee were not subjected to scrutiny but were only processed u/s 143(1) - Subsequently, AO had received specific information indicating that certain purchases made by the assessee are non-genuine. Therefore, tangible material was available with the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessments u/s 147 of the Act. That being the case, there cannot be any question regarding assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. - Decided against assessee.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1294
TP Adjustment - determining the arm’s length price of the appellant’s international transaction with its associated enterprises in respect of interest on loan advanced to wholly owned subsidiary thereby proposing an enhancement of returned income - computing interest at US LIBOR - HELD THAT:- We direct that transfer pricing adjustment qua the transaction of advancing loan by the taxpayer to its AE is to be determined at US LIBOR plus 170 basis points. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1291
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Assessee is engaged in providing information technology enabled services ("ITES") to its holding company and therefore has to be regarded as an Associated Enterprises ("AEs"), thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected.
Also if filter of sales > Rs. 1 crore OR export turnover in excess of 75% of total sales is not satisfied exclusion of company as a comparable company confirmed. Also companies with huge brand value and diversified activities need to be deslected.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1290
TP Adjustment - Comparable selection - inclusion of CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. - HELD THAT:- As assessee has shown the revenue operations up to 60% to 70% from the sale of capacitors and resistors whereas there was no segmental information about manufacturing as well as sale of capacitors and resistors in the annual statement of CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. Therefore, in our view CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. cannot be a comparable to that of assessee. Hence, it should be excluded from the comparables. Therefore, we direct the AO to exclude the CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. from the final list of comparables in the category of manufacturing segments.
I.T. Enabled Services/Back Office Support Services Segment - Comparability of certain companies in the Back Office Support Segment, this Tribunal remanded the matter to the file of AO/TPO to ascertain the precise nature of services rendered by the assessee under ITES and to examine the comparability or otherwise of the companies challenged in this segment in A.Y. 2010-11.In the light of the above, the AO is directed to ascertain the nature of services rendered by the assessee and examine the comparability of the companies indicated therein. Accordingly, this issue is remanded the file of AO/TPO for fresh examination. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim.
TDS u/s 195 - Disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) - assessee for convenience Vishay India hereafter paid an amount to its Associated Enterprise (AE) i.e. Vishay Intertechnology Asia Pte Ltd., Singapore - HELD THAT:- Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 [2019 (9) TMI 1683 - ITAT PUNE] wherein the issue on hand discussed by this Tribunal, wherein we note that the assessee availed similar services from its holding company in USA for which the Vishay Singapore paid the said amount on behalf of other entities situated worldwide and charged without no markup from the assessee as well as from other entities. No disallowance was made in this regard by the respondent authorities in the earlier years. The Tribunal examined the final assessment orders/TPO’s orders of earlier years along with the necessary documentation filed by the assessee therein and held the reimbursement of expenses for leaseline are not in the realm of royalty and section 9 of the Act or Article 12 of DTAA is attracted.
The Tribunal further placed reliance in the case of John Deere India Pvt. Ltd[2019 (3) TMI 458 - ITAT PUNE]wherein the similar issue was raised and held that the payment made for such leaseline charges was not royalty under DTAA and no obligation to deduct tax at source. Thus the disallowance as confirmed by the AO in accordance with the directions of DRP is not justified and accordingly, deleted. Thus, the assessee ground succeeds and it is allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1289
TP Adjustment - MAM Selection - AO rejecting the TNMM method applied by the assessee and used cup method for benchmarking the transaction of Intra Group Services (professional consultancy services and management fee for support services) - HELD THAT:- Following the orders passed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in taxpayer’s own cases [2016 (8) TMI 950 - ITAT DELHI] and [2020 (8) TMI 917 - ITAT DELHI] and qua the controversy at hand in taxpayer’s own case, we are of the considered view that this issue is no longer res integra because time and again it has been held that TNMM is the MAM to benchmark the international transactions entered into by the taxpayer with its AE qua professional consultancy services (information technology) and fee for management support services but TPO, for the reasons best known to him and to our mind to generate unnecessary litigation, proceeded to apply the CUP method by applying same reasoning applied in the earlier years. So, ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the additions by following the orders passed by the Tribunal and Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court [2019 (12) TMI 1630 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] passed in taxpayer’s own case. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1286
Penalty initiated u/s 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, coordinate Bench of the Tribunal [2020 (11) TMI 116 - ITAT DELHI] deleted the additions. In these circumstances, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable in view of the law laid down in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr [2004 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] by holding that “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in view of the matter, penalties levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) is ordered to be deleted. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1284
Short term capital gains on slump sale - computation of net worth - DR submitted net worth of the asset has to be computed u/s.50B of the Act and therefore the AO has rightly reduced the liability from the value of the assets as on the date of sale to arrive at the net worth of the asset - HELD THAT:- Once AO has accepted that payment of part consideration directly to the bank is the application of its sale proceeds by the assessee, then it is to be considered that the liability has been discharged by the assessee and is no longer the liability of the purchaser.
Hence, the net worth of the assets does not include the liability of Rs.21.50 Lakhs, (as it is discharged by the assessee). There is no evidence brought on record by the department that the buyer has paid the assessee any amount more than Rs.51.50 Crores. The buyer has received the assets without any liability and therefore the net worth of the asset is Rs.55,14,38,969/-. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the net worth of the asset has to be further reduced by the liability because the liability has already been discharged by the assessee only. Appeal of assessee is allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1283
TDS u/s 195 - Non deduction of TDS - commission expenses on export sales - expenses incurred are in the nature of ‘fee for technical services’ and thus falls within the sweep of Section 9(1)(vii) r.w. Explanation (2) thereto as against the claim of the assessee that commission payments are business expenses without involvement of any managerial, technical or consultancy services - HELD THAT:- It is the case of the assessee that the remittance have been made towards commission payments almost to the same parties as in the earlier years for which favourable view has been taken by the Tribunal on facts. It is the case of the assessee that the commission agents have rendered the services abroad and the situs of accrual or receipt of their commission income is outside India. It is further claimed that services rendered by agents have been utilized by the assessee outside India in procuring the export orders.
The issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of co-ordinate bench for AY 2010-11 as rightly acknowledged by the CIT(A). The commission payments are seen to be made to the similar set of parties as in AY 2010-11. The allegation on behalf of the Revenue that expenses incurred are covered in the wider definition of ‘fees for technical services’ as defined in Explanation (2) to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act is devoid of any rationale.
Except for bald allegation of the services being akin to managerial or consultancy services, the AO has not brought any material on record to discard the stand of assessee. The co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal has duly analyzed this aspect in length [2017 (11) TMI 562 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] in the case of assessee itself and has delivered a speaking order in favour of the assessee on all aspects of subject matter on facts.
The services in respect of commission expenses are stated to be rendered outside India as well as utilized outside India and therefore the income arising by way of commission against rendition of agency services cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India in the hands of the recipients of such commission payments. In the circumstances, where the income arising to non-resident commission agents is not found to be chargeable in India under S.4 r.w.s. 5(2) of the Act, the obligation u/s 195 of the Act for deduction of tax at source cannot be fastened upon the remitter assessee.
In the absence of statutory obligation arising u/s 195 for deduction of tax in the absence of chargeability of remittances, the corresponding disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) is without any merit and thus uncalled for. We thus see no error in the action of the CIT(A) who has rightly applied the decision of the Tribunal in the facts of the case. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1282
Notional loss of Foreign Exchange derivative - HELD THAT:- Question Nos. 1 and 2 were decided against the Revenue by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal passed [2018 (2) TMI 1806 - ITAT KOLKATA] for the Assessment Year 2010-11.
Monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court - HELD THAT:- In view of the circular No.17/2019 F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt.) dated August 8, 2019 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes Judicial Section, whereby the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court has been increased to ₹1 crore and the tax effect in the present being less than that, he may be permitted to withdraw the present appeal. Revenue is allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1281
Long term capital gain - FMV determination - CIT(A) adopted the Fair Market Value(FMV) of cost of acquisition as on 01.01.1981 @ Rs.14.18 sq. mtr on the basis of report of District Valuation Officer(DVO) - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that in assessee’s co-owner’s case[2019 (7) TMI 1961 - ITAT SURAT] the Tribunal has directed the AO to adopt the Fair Market Value of land @100 per sq.mtr as on 01.04.1981, therefore, respectfully following the order of coordinate bench the AO is directed to follow the order of the Tribunal above accordingly, appeal of the assessee partly allowed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1280
Bogus LTCG - Addition u/s 68 - investigation wing of the Department had held the script SRK Industries as bogus - Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of shares which are exempt u/s 10(38) denied by holding that the script in which the capital gain had accrued was a penny stock and bogus - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Kolkata Bench in the case of Aditya Vikram Sureka HUF [2019 (10) TMI 837 - ITAT KOLKATA] has considered gain from scrip SRK Industries Ltd. and have allowed relief to the assessee. Similarly, we find that SMC Kolkata Bench in the case of Shreyans Chopra [2018 (7) TMI 2028 - ITAT KOLKATA] has allowed relief to the assessee on the same scrip - Also in AMRITA BAID [2018 (11) TMI 1924 - ITAT KOLKATA] capital gain on the script SRK Industries was allowed exempt u/s 10(38) - Decided in favour of assessee.
Disallowance of commission paid - AO disallowed amount by holding that assessee failed to furnish address of the persons and he further held that tax at source was also not deducted - HELD THAT:- Before Learned CIT(A) it was submitted that assessee was not required to deduct TDS to which he agreed but upheld the addition by holding that no evidence was produced in support of commission paid. In this respect that assessee had furnished the information relating to persons to whom commission was paid where the name of one person including his address is mentioned and in respect of second person only name of the person is mentioned. Therefore, we accept the request of Learned AR for another opportunity to file the evidence of commission before A.O. and in view of that the second grievance of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1277
Rectification of mistake u/s 254 - Deduction u/s 80-P(2)(d) - income received from investments made with Jaipur Central Co-operative Bank - whether the assessee has incurred any interest expenditure in earning the interest income? - HELD THAT:- As the issue of quantum of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) i.e, whether the deduction to be allowed on gross or net interest income was under consideration by the Tribunal in each of the aforesaid three assessment years for which misc. application has been filed by the Revenue. In each of these years, the Revenue has challenged the eligibility of the assessee for claim of whole of the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) whereas the assessee in its cross appeal has challenged the action of the CIT(A) in restricting the quantum of deduction eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Therefore, the issue raised in the misc. applications so filed by Revenue is clearly arising out of the grounds taken by the Revenue as well as the assessee before the Coordinate Benches and orders passed by the Coordinate Benches.
We therefore donot see any legal infirmity in terms of raising the said issue by the Revenue before us by way of present misc. applications.
For A.Y 2011-12 and A.Y 2012-13, the Coordinate Bench has held that there was no necessity to examine the issue as to whether deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) shall be allowed on the gross interest income on FDRs or it should be allowed on the net interest income as conceptually the deduction under section 80P(2)(d) has to be allowed on gross and not on net interest income as held by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. [2016 (7) TMI 1217 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] The Coordinate Bench therefore following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court allowed the deduction on gross interest income for respective assessment years.
For A.Y 2014-15, the Coordinate Bench followed the aforesaid decision for A.Y 2011-12 and A.Y 2012-13 allowed the deduction on gross interest income. In this year, we find that the ld DR brought to the notice of Coordinate Bench, the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Upbhokta Sangh Ltd [1995 (1) TMI 33 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] and the Coordinate Bench held that it has taken into consideration the decision cited by the Revenue authorities, however, given that Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case has decided the matter recently for A.Y 2011-12 and A.Y 2012-13, it decided to follow the earlier decision and decided the matter in favour of the assessee.
For A.Y 2016-17, the Coordinate Bench held that in the earlier decisions so rendered for A.Y 2011-12, AY 2012-13 and A.Y 2014-15, the Coordinate Benches have relied on the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in case of Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd vs ACIT (supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble Rajsthan High Court in case of Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari Upbhokta Sangh Ltd (supra), which has been brought to its notice by the ld. CIT DR, was not considered and being the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court, the same is binding on the Tribunal and therefore, to this extent the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench for earlier years stand distinguishable.
We agree with the contention advanced by the ld AR that the legal issue challenging the validity of order passed u/s 147 was earlier dismissed as infructious for A.Y 2011-12 and A.Y 2012-13 as the matter was only decided on merits and the same should be also be recalled and decided afresh.
In the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby recall the earlier orders so passed by the Coordinate Benches in [2019 (10) TMI 759 - ITAT JAIPUR] and subsequent order passed by the Tribunal in [2019 (9) TMI 1338 - ITAT JAIPUR] for A.Y 2014-15 for the limited purposes of adjudication of matter relating to quantum of deduction eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) as to whether the deduction should be allowed on gross interest or net interest income afresh taking into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari Upbhokta Sangh Ltd (supra) as well as adjudication of following grounds of appeal afresh as raised by the assessee in its respective cross-appeals:
-
2021 (1) TMI 1275
Assessment u/s 153A - Proof of incriminating material found during the course of search or not? - HELD THAT:- In the case of unabated assessments of an assessee, no addition is permissible in the order u/s 153A unless it is based on any incriminating material found during the course of search. See Majestic Commercial (P) Ltd. [2020 (3) TMI 1077 - ITAT KOLKATA]
As the undisputed fact is that the additions are not based on any incriminating material found during search and as the assessment has not abated, we delete the additions by applying the principles laid down by Rashmi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [2020 (2) TMI 1463 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] on this issue. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1272
Ex-parte order passed by CIT-A - Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Since there was no appearance from the side of the assessee despite service of notice, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by the CIT(A), there was no appearance from the side of the assessee for which the CIT(A) was constrained to pass the ex-parte order, dismissing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. However, he has not decided the appeal on merit which he is required to do.
As per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, the order of the CIT(A) disposing the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Since the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merit which he is required to do, therefore, deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case and decide the issue as per fact and law by passing a speaking order. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the CIT(A) and substantiate its case - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1269
Deduction u/s 35(2AB) - Appellant was not entitled to deduction u/s 35(2AB) to the extent the expenses eligible for deduction under the said provision pertained to a unit entitled for deduction under Section 10B - whether Tribunal was right in holding that the weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) would not be available to the Appellant while computing the income of the unit eligible for relief under Section 10B? - HELD THAT:- For the reasons assigned by us in [2021 (2) TMI 112 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] insofar as it pertains to the finding that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act is hereby quashed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1268
Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 - assessee has opted to settle the dispute relating to the tax arrears under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 for the assessment years under consideration and requested for withdrawal the said appeals - HELD THAT:- As the captioned appeals are consigned to records and treated as dismissed.
The aforesaid is subject to a caveat that in case the dispute relating to tax arrears for the captioned assessment years is not ultimately resolved in terms of the Act, the assessee shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of the appeals and the Tribunal shall consider such application appropriately as per law. The Revenue has no objection with regard to the aforesaid caveat.
Both the appeals are consigned to record and, for statistical purposes, are treated as dismissed.
........
|
