|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 641 Records
-
2021 (3) TMI 1314
Benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme ('VVS Scheme') - Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on account of certain subsequent developments - HELD THAT:- Having heard both the parties through video conference, We are inclined to treat the instant appeal of the assessee as withdrawn relying on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Keyaram Hotels P. Ltd [2020 (11) TMI 142 - MADRAS HIGH COURT].
Accordingly, We hereby dismiss the instant appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2008-09 as withdrawn. However, We also make it clear that, if the assessee’s case is not accepted in the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme by the Revenue for whatsoever may be reason on a subsequent date, then the assessee shall be at liberty to file Miscellaneous Petition before the Tribunal within the time limit prescribed under the Act to reinstate her appeal - Appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1300
Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme - HELD THAT:- As assessee has filed a letter dated 25.02.2021 withdrawing the appeal as the assessee has opted for solution of dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The learned Departmental Representative did not object to the same.
As relying on M/S. NANNUSAMY MOHAN (HUF) [2020 (11) TMI 484 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] as the assessee is opting for resolution of dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme in the present appeal, we treat the appeal as disposed off as withdrawn.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1298
Addition u/s. 40A(2)(b) - disallowance on accrued interest on NPA, contingent provision for standard assets and disallowance @ 50% on payment to Cosmos Foundation - HELD THAT:- There was no contrary order as on today against the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case. We note that as rightly pointed out by the ld. AR that there is no order placed on record to show that the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case involving the issue on hand is reversed or modified by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and the AO made 50% disallowance on payment made to Cosmos Foundation only on the ground that the appeal is pending for admission before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. CIT(A) clearly held since there was no order from the Hon’ble High Court, the order of this Tribunal is binding on the Revenue authorities involving the same issue. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is justified. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1297
Addition of interest earned from foreign bank - income estimation to be @ 4% per annum as the assessee failed to provide any details in respect of foreign bank account and interest rates thereon - HELD THAT:- In the absence of any bank account statement of the said bank account and information of the status of its existence / closure, the balance as on March, 2007 was required to be worked-out as there must have been component of interest earned for the month of March, 2007 and thereafter. The A.O, therefore, presumed that assessee has earned interest @ 4% per annum and made the addition.
These facts clearly show that A.O. was not having any information/material so as to prove that assessee maintained the same HSBC account for the assessment year under appeal.
A.O. in the absence of bank statement and further details presumed that assessee must have earned interest on the same foreign bank account in assessment year under appeal. It was, therefore, clearly support the findings of fact recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) that there were no evidence available with the A.O. to compute the interest earned by the assessee in assessment year under appeal. In the absence of any evidence on record to the effect that assessee maintained any foreign bank account in assessment year under appeal or earned any interest thereon, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. We do not find any error in the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. The Departmental Appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1291
Application to settle the tax litigation by opting for ‘Vivad se Vishwas Scheme 2020’(VSVS2020) - HELD THAT:- Since the assessee has opted for ‘Vivaad se Vishwas Scheme 2020’ and has filed a letter dt 17-02- 2021 mentioning that the assessee has applied under VSVS 2020 and has received Form-3 from the Income Tax Department - no purpose will be served in keeping the appeals pending. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals of the assessee as withdrawn and the assessee is given liberty to move an application u/s 254(2) of the Act to recall the present order as per provisions of Law.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1271
Abolishment of Income Tax Settlement Commission - Application for settlement of cases rejected - applications are not being accepted by the Settlement Commissioner just on account of presentation of the Finance Bill, 2021 proposing an amendment to Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, which could abolish the Income Tax Settlement Commission once the Act comes into force - HELD THAT:- It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that no such attempt to file such application before the Settlement Commissioner has been made by the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would make such an effort and file an affidavit to that effect by Monday.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1269
Search case in terms of VsVs Act - petitioner challenging the subsequent Form-3 issued by the respondent/revenue after a full and final settlement of disputed taxes in Form-5 - petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that after a certificate in Form (5) was issued by the designated authority on 28.12.2020 indicating therein that there has been a full and final settlement qua disputed tax, the designated authority has gone on to issue, once again, Form (3) which is dated 21.01.2021 thereby seeking to treat its case as a search case - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the deadline prescribed stands extended till 30.04.2021. We may also indicate that in the impugned form, i.e., Form (3), referred to hereinabove, the following remark is incorporated: “This case is treated as a Search case in terms of VsVs Act/Rules 2020 and the CBDT circular No.21/2020 and the amount payable has been re-calculated accordingly. As such this is the revised Form 3 has been issued. The original Form 3 issued on 23.12.2020 and the Form 5 issued on 28.12.2020 may be treated as cancelled/withdrawn.
Petitioner, says that the designated authority was rendered functus officio after Form (5) was issued on 28.12.2020 and therefore, the impugned communication is not sustainable in law. Prima facie, to our minds, the submission made by Mr. Jain appears to be correct.
Accordingly, issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Puneet Rai, who appears on advance notice, accepts service on behalf of the respondents.Mr. Rai seeks and is granted two weeks to file a counter-affidavit. Rejoinder thereto, if any, will be filed before the next date of hearing.There shall be a stay on the operation of the impugned Form 3 dated 21.01.2021.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1268
Benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme ('VVS Scheme') - HELD THAT:- We are inclined to treat the instant appeal of the assessee as withdrawn relying on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Keyaram Hotels P. Ltd [2020 (11) TMI 142 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - we hereby dismiss the instant appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2013-14 as withdrawn. However, we also make it clear that, if the assessee’s case is not accepted in the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme by the Revenue for whatsoever may be reason on a subsequent date, then the assessee shall be at liberty to file Miscellaneous Petition before the Tribunal within the time limit prescribed under the Act to reinstate its appeal. It is ordered accordingly.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1267
Rectification of mistake - Validity of the reference made by the AO for special audit as per the provisions of section 142(2A) - HELD THAT:- We do not find any merit in the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue since the adjudication of the reference to special audit by the ITAT has been held to be well within its jurisdiction in the case of Consulting Engineering Services Private Limited Vs. ITAT & Another [2017 (9) TMI 1928 - DELHI HIGH COURT], that too after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sahara India[2008 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT]. Therefore, with regard to the same, there is no mistake in the order of the ITAT. Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue are, dismissed.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1264
Disallowance @20% of agriculture income by treating the same as unexplained cash credit - only objection of the AO is that the assessee is having a farmhouse and income was received from the natural activity which is not agricultural activity as per the provisions of the Act - HELD THAT:- AO has merely acted on the basis of surmises and conjuncture in estimating 20% of the total receipt as unexplained cash credit without carrying out any further verification from the buyer/purchasers of these agricultural products/produce.
Both of the authorities have failed to discharge their duties properly as none of the parties have brought any substantial material on record to prove that assessee has incurred expenses over and above what has been stated by the assessee. AO has made a ground that some income received by the assessee was in the nature of non-agriculture and substantial too in nature, whereas ld. CIT(A) has gone on a different footing that assessee has incurred expenses to earn the said income which seems to be understated - we are not in a position to sustain the order of the ld. CIT(A) as the same appeared to be a guess work to sustain the addition made by the AO and therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order of first appellate authority and direct the AO to delete the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1263
Writ Petition seeks mandamus to have infrastructural facility in place for disposal of appeal preferred by the Petitioner on jurisdictional issue - HELD THAT:- In the interregnum, it appears that assessment proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice about which jurisdictional issue has been raised, have been proceeded with. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that if those are decided, the appeal would be rendered redundant.
It appears to be expedient if the Appellate Authority decides the pending appeal at an early date.
Appellate Authority – Respondent No.2 to dispose of pending appeal before it within a period of four weeks from today. The assessment proceedings to go on. The result therein would be subject to decision of Respondent No.2.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1262
TP Adjustment - International transactions of the assessee with its associated enterprises - assessee has restricted his arguments in respect of entity level adjustments made by the Ld. TPO - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, it is a well settled principle of law by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Firestone International Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (1) TMI 1408 - SC ORDER] affirmed to the findings of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, where the Hon'ble High Court held that TP adjustments cannot be made beyond the transactions of the assessee with its associated enterprises.
ITAT, Chennai in the case of Prodapt Solutions Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (3) TMI 1919 - ITAT CHENNAI] has considered an identical issue and held that transfer pricing adjustment has to be made only in respect of transactions of the assessee being a tested party, with associated enterprises after comparing the transactions made by similarly placed company in uncontrolled transactions with non associated enterprises.
Thus adjustment can be made only in respect of transactions of the assessee with its associated enterprises, but not to a third party transactions at entity level - TPO as well as DRP has erred in making TP adjustment at entity level - we direct the Ld. TPO to restrict TP adjustment in respect of international transactions of the assessee with its associated enterprises.
Working capital adjustment - HELD THAT:- TPO needs to compute working capital adjustment having regard to the margins of the comparables after considering the working capital levels. But, fact remains that the details with regard to working capital adjustment of comparables is not placed before us. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the matter needs to go back to the file of Ld. TPO to re-consider the working capital adjustment in light of the findings of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2011-12 [2021 (3) TMI 585 - ITAT CHENNAI].
-
2021 (3) TMI 1253
Settlement commission abolishment - seeking relief for declaring that the proposed amendment in the Finance Bill 2021 regarding amendment in Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 where under the Income Tax Settlement Commission is proposed to be abolished w.e.f. 01.02.2021, cannot be acted upon without being notified in the official gazette and without receiving the Presidential assent - HELD THAT:- Writ petitions were preferred with an apprehension that applications of the petitioners would not be accepted by the Settlement Commission in view of the proposed amendment in Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, as per the statement made in the supplementary affidavit, applications of the petitioners have been accepted and requisite fees has been deposited through challan, copy of which are enclosed to the supplementary affidavit. In these circumstances, petitioners’ grievance, though raised prematurely before this Court, appears to have been redressed. Chapter XIX-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with powers and procedure of Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission may consider it in accordance with law.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1251
Revision u/s 263 - addition as made u/s 54F - HELD THAT:- AO has either ignored the said proviso or the deduction so allowed is in violation of the said provision to section 54F of the Act and therefore, the order so passed by the AO cannot be held as erroneous due to ignorance or incorrect application of law. All the relevant facts in respect of both the residential houses have been considered and provisions of law have been rightly applied by the AO and deduction u/s 54F has been allowed to the extent of assessee’s share in respect of one residential house. The 'prejudice' that is contemplated under section 263 is the prejudice to the Income Tax administration as a whole. The revision has to be done for the purpose of setting right distortions and prejudices caused to the Revenue in the above context. The fundamental principles which emerge from the several cases regarding the powers of the CIT u/s 263.
AO had made full and complete enquiries with regard to claim of deduction raised by the assessee u/s 54F of the Act as we have discussed in detail mentioning the specific paras in the order of the assessment, we are of the view that the order passed by the Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act by holding that the AO had not applied correct provisions of law while finalizing the assessment indicating lack of enquiries or verification is thus not sustainable in law and therefore, we quash the order of the ld. CIT(A) passed U/s 263 - Appeal of the assessee is allowed
-
2021 (3) TMI 1250
Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme - withdrawal of appeal - HELD THAT:- As gone through the request of the assessee to obtain the benefit of ‘Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme’ and noted that assessee has prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. Revenue did not have any objection if the said appeal is withdrawn by the assessee. Consequently, we treat this appeal as withdrawn.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1248
Deduction u/s 80IC - interest income from fixed deposit - According to the assessee, even if the interest income from Fixed Deposit does not qualify for the deduction u/s 80IC, still it being a business receipt should be given the benefit of netting - HELD THAT:- We note that in the revenue appeal for the same assessment year i.e. AY 2014-15 [2020 (3) TMI 1362 - ITAT KOLKATA] we have confirmed the action of Ld. CIT(A) in respect of claim of the assessee in respect of interest income as not eligible for deduction u/s 80IC.
Netting of interest income was not before us, because the revenue appeal came up without this assessee’s cross-appeal. And since this issue has come to our notice only in this appeal, in the interest of justice and fair play and as per settled principle of law, we are of the opinion that the net interest should only be brought to tax. Needless to say, the assessee in this case has claimed to have made the FDs for the purpose of procuring bank guarantee which was a condition precedent for procurement of raw material from M/s SAIL. And therefore, according to us, the interest income even if it does not qualify for deduction u/s 80IC of the Act being not having first degree nexus, still the nature of the receipt since being business in nature and not from other sources [refer CIT vs. Nirma Ltd.[2014 (10) TMI 388 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] needs to be treated as business receipt, if the facts are correct, which may be verified by the CIT(A), since we have restored certain issues back to him, while adjudicating the Revenue Appeal for this assessment year.
And if the contention of the assessee is found to be correct, then netting should be allowed to their interest receipt as held by the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirma Ltd. [2014 (10) TMI 388 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. Therefore we restore this issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1245
Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - Royalty receipts - treatment of income from sale of off-the-shelf software - India- Ireland DTAA - whether the payments made to non-resident software suppliers is "royalty" and hence TDS u/s.195 was required to be deducted on those payments or not? - HELD THAT:- Issue involved in this appeal has been put to rest in view of the decision rendered in ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED [2021 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT] and the issue involved in this appeal has been answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1244
Long term capital gain - Nature of land sold - profit derived from sale of agricultural land is taxable or not? - HELD THAT:- Whether profit derived from sale of agricultural land is taxable or not is essential question of fact, which needs to be ascertained on the basis of evidences filed by the assessee to prove that land was an agricultural land and the same was used for agricultural purpose - finding of fact recorded by the authorities below indicate that the assessee has not filed any evidence to prove that land was used for agricultural purpose but contention of the assessee is that the land in question was agricultural land and it was used for agricultural purpose. The assessee further claimed that if opportunity is given, he is ready to produce necessary evidence to prove his claim. Therefore, considering the arguments of both sides, we are of the considered view that the issue needs to be set aside to the file of the AO to ascertain the fact with regard to nature of the land when it was sold, to decide the taxability of profit derived from sale of land.
Appeal is set aside to the file of the AO and we direct him to verify the issue in light of evidences filed by the assessee to prove that land in question is agricultural land and the same is used for agricultural purpose - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1243
Rectification u/s 254 - mistakes in the order and also the failure on the part of the Tribunal to consider the some judicial pronouncements - HELD THAT:- We recall the order that was passed by the Tribunal while disposing off the appeal of the assessee [2021 (8) TMI 1030 - ITAT MUMBAI] for the limited purpose of considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements which were relied upon by the assessee's counsel in the course of hearing of the appeal but had inadvertently remained omitted to be considered while passing the order viz. (i) CIT Vs. Akshay Textile Trading & Agencies Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (10) TMI 251 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and (ii) Manek lal Agarwal Vs DCIT [2017 (8) TMI 667 - SUPREME COURT]. The registry is accordingly directed to fix the matter on 23.04.2021.
-
2021 (3) TMI 1232
Violation of Section 179 - Liability of directors of private company in Liquidation - HELD THAT:- The impugned orders have been passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which specifically applies to liability of directors of private companies. The definitions of private limited company and public limited company Section 3(i)(iii) and (iv) of the Companies Act, 1956 is clear.
The definition of company has defined in Companies Act, 1956 has been incorporated in the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Companies Act, 1956 recognizes private limited company and public limited company. There are no evidence on records to conclude that the said assessee in default companies namely M/s.Gangotri Textiles Ltd and NEPC Agro Foods Ltd was a private limited company.
There are no records to substantiate the said companies was a private limited company. Therefore, challenge to invocation of Section 179 of the Income Tax Act also appears to correct. Considering the fact that the records are not in produced either by the petitioner nor the respondent, it is of the view that the impugned orders is liable to be quashed. These cases are remitted back to the respondent to pass appropriate orders, after considering the definition of the 'Company' in Section 262(68) and (71) of the Companies Act, 2013 and ..deals of the Companies Act, 1956.
The respondent may how issue a proper notice after examining the certificate of incorporation of the respective assessee in default and after examined the articles and Memorandum and Article of association of M/s.Gangotri Textiles Ltd and NEPC Agro Foods Ltd. If there are materials to suggest that the .company were a private limited company the respondent may pass appropriate order under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act. This exercise shall be carried out by the respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the records from the Registrar of Companies indicates that the assessee in default was a public limited company no further proceedings is to be taken. In the event, there is a prima facie material to conclude that the assessee in default were a private limited company, appropriate notice may be issued to the petitioners.
........
|
