|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 9304 Records
-
2022 (12) TMI 928
Reopening of assessment - validity of assessment framed under section 147 - exemption claimed on the sale of shares - HELD THAT:- From the reasons recorded by the AO, it is revealed that the proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated on the verification of the case records which were available with the AO during the original assessment proceedings framed under section 143(3) of the Act. In the reason recorded there no whisper that the AO was having any fresh tangible material.
Thus, the reopening of the assessment was initiated on the basis of same set of document already available with the AO at the time of regular assessment which is nothing but change of opinion. To our considered opinion reopening of assessment cannot be initiated in absence of fresh material or based on change of opinion. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of PCIT vs. Fibers and Fabrics International (P.) Ltd. [2022 (4) TMI 1433 - SC ORDER]
Admittedly, the AO on verification of the same set of documents which were available during the original proceedings formed reasons to believe that there is an escapement of income on account of exemption claimed on the sale of shares. In view of the above, we hold that the proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act are not sustainable and therefore liable to be quashed for the reasons discussed above. Hence, the ground of cross objection raised by the assessee is hereby allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 927
Disallowance of marketing expenses incurred during the year - Disallowance of marketing expenditure u/s 37(1) by treating the same as non-genuine/non-business transaction/expenditure - HELD THAT:- In order to determine the genuineness of the payment made by the assessee AO issued notices under section 133(6) - only 2 parties namely, M/s EIH Ltd and The Lalit Golf and Spa Resort failed to respond to the aforesaid notice. In order to substantiate the genuineness of the payment to these 2 entities, assessee furnished the bank account statement, which reflected the payment made to these parties, invoices raised by these entities to the assessee, details of tax deducted on payment made to these parties, PAN No. and complete address.
It is no doubt true that payment through the bank channel is not conclusive proof of the transaction. At the same time, when the assessee has provided all the information available with it regarding the transaction, merely on the basis that the entity has not responded to notice issued u/s 133 (6) the transaction cannot be doubted and be treated as non-genuine, particularly when the same has been entered into with entities which are well-known Hotel chains in India.
It is also not the claim of the Revenue that these entities are not in existence or the documents furnished by the assessee are bogus. Thus we find no basis in upholding the addition by the AO merely on the basis that only 2 out of 17 parties failed to respond to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act. We direct the AO to delete the addition. Grounds raised in assessee’s appeal are allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 926
Long-term capital gain earned from the sale of a flat - AO has treated the assessee to be not the owner of 50% share in the Skylark flat - AR submitted that the assessee along with his wife has sold the flats to a third party, and without being the legal owner registration could not have taken place. Further, the assessee also paid part of the purchase consideration in the year 1992 and enjoyed 50% ownership of the said flat till it was sold in the year 2014 - HELD THAT:- As in the records of Skylark Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, the name of the assessee and his wife is appearing as the shareholders. The assessee has also furnished a copy of the bank statement of assessee’s account in Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank, to substantiate the payment as part of the purchase consideration of the Skylark flat. It has also not been disputed that the said flat was subsequently sold in July 2014 to third-party by the assessee and his wife and as per the registered deed of transfer the purchaser has agreed to pay the total consideration in equal proportion to the assessee and his wife
Nothing has been brought on record that due to the alleged lack of ownership of the assessee, the title in the property has not been legally transferred to the purchaser. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the learned CIT(A) has rightly accepted the long-term capital gain in the hands of the assessee.
Addition made by the AO by treating the part consideration from the sale of Skylark flat as unexplained credit - We find that the registered deed of transfer whereby the said flat was sold to the third party was already available on record before the AO and therefore in the aforesaid circumstances the amount of sale consideration received by the assessee, being the joint owner of the flat, cannot be held to be unexplained credit in the hands of the assessee. Thus, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue. As a result, grounds No. 1 and 2 raised in Revenue’s appeal are dismissed.
Set off of long-term capital loss arising from STT paid transactions against long-term capital gain arising from the sale of the flat - HELD THAT:- It has not been denied by the assessee that the long-term capital loss arose on account of the sale of units of mutual funds on which STT was paid. The said long-term capital loss has been sought to be set off against the long-term capital gain arising on the sale of Skylark flat. We find that in Appolo Tyres Ltd. [2021 (9) TMI 708 - KERALA HIGH COURT] following question of law came up for consideration the claim of the assessee of set off of long-term capital loss arising from STT paid transactions against long-term capital gain arising from the sale of the flat is rejected. As a result, ground raised in Revenue’s appeal is allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 925
Interest paid on service tax as compensatory in nature for delay in remittance of service tax - allowable expenditure u/s 37(1) - AO has disallowed a sum being interest on service tax relating to earlier years on the ground that the same is in the nature of penalty - HELD THAT:- We find that interest paid on belated payments of service tax is not a penalty, which can be disallowed u/s. 37(1) - Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition made by the AO towards interest paid on service tax. Hence, we reverse the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete addition made towards disallowance of interest on service tax. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 924
Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) - disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) - HELD THAT:- Grounds taken by the assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been held that “deduction u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount collected towards employees’ contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within the due date of filing of return even when read with Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961. Thus grounds taken by the assessee are dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 923
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - IT enabled services segment - HELD THAT:- Companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
Mismatch of the income shown by the assessee and the entries shown in Form 26AS - HELD THAT:- The disagreement between the Assessing Officer and the assessee with respect to the income received by the assessee or vis-à-vis the amount shown in 26AS can only be resolved by making necessary enquiries from the persons who had deducted the TDS amount. The details of the persons i.e., Names, PAN numbers and addresses, are all available in form 26AS. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to verify once again the claim of the assessee by using powers conferred under the Act and find out whether the said income pertains to assessee company or not from the said persons who had allegedly deducted the tax as reflected in 26AS. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2022 (12) TMI 922
TP Adjustment - Selection of comparables - the assessee is engaged in ‘provision of logistics services’ to its associated enterprises and also to non-associated enterprises - HELD THAT:- Deselection of comparables as compared to assessee benchmarking the international transaction pertaining to ‘provision of logistics services’.
Grant of credit of TDS - HELD THAT:- We deem it appropriate to direct the AO to grant the credit of TDS as per law, after necessary verification/examination of details. Accordingly, ground raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Levy of interest u/s 244A - HELD THAT:- As per the assessee, Rs 32,64,829 has not been refunded to the assessee. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to direct the AO to de novo adjudicate upon the issue of levy of interest under section 244A of the Act after necessary verification/examination of details. As a result, ground no. 6 raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2022 (12) TMI 921
Validity of assessment order passed u/s 153(1) - as argued that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is beyond limitation and thus, invalid and void ab initio - scope of section 144C(1) and provisions of section 153(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - HELD THAT:- The Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal IPF India Property Cyprus [2020 (2) TMI 1500 - ITAT MUMBAI] has considered an identical issue in light of provisions of section 144C(1) and amended provisions u/s.144C(1) w.e.f. 01.04.2020 and held that when there is no variation in income or loss returned by the assessee, which is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee, then question of issuing draft assessment order does not arise and consequently, the Assessing Officer does not get extended period for completion of assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The provisions of section 153(1) prescribed time limit for completion of assessment for the assessee. As per the said provisions, limitation to pass assessment order under subsection (3) of section 143 of the Act, for the concerned assessment year 2014-15 was 21 months which ends on 31.12.2016. In this case, assessment order has been passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144C(3)(b) on 28.02.2017. If the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is considered as assessment order passed u/s.143(3), then the Assessing Officer ought to have passed order on or before 31.12.2016. If you consider the Assessing Officer is right in passing draft assessment order u/s.144C(1), then the Assessing Officer gets extended time and time limit for passing order is 31.12.2017. In this case, since, the Assessing Officer cannot invoke jurisdiction u/s.144C(1) and pass draft assessment order, question of extended 12 months period cannot be given to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we are of the considered view that final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.144C(3) r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, dated 28.02.2017 is barred by limitation, because time limit available for completion of assessment u/s.143(3) is 31.12.2016.
Thus we are of the considered view that assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144C(3)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28.02.2017 is clearly barred by limitation and thus, assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is void ab initio. Hence, we quash the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer.
Levying 30% tax on interest income by ignoring Article 11 of India-Cyprus DTAA on the ground that the assessee is beneficial owners which is covered under Article 11 of India- Cyprus tax treaty - The assessee has filed various details, including tax residency certificate issued by Republic of Cyprus, Ministry of Finance, to prove residential status and also notification No.86/2013 issued in terms of sec.94A of the Act and also subsequent withdrawal of said notification vide Circular No.15/2017 dated 21.04.2017 and argued that the assessee is covered under Article-11 of India-Cyprus tax treaty and liable to pay tax @ 10% - fact remains that although, the assessee has challenged issue on merits, but the issue has not been adjudicated at this point, because assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer has been quashed as void ab initio. Hence, we are not inclined to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee on merits.
-
2022 (12) TMI 920
TP Adjustment - adjustment on account of interest on receivables - HELD THAT:- The assessee entered into various international transactions with its AEs resulting in outstanding receivables as per the payment terms stipulated in the inter company policy entered into with the AEs. The assessee being a captive unit has received advances from some of its AEs for services to be provided in future.
As relying on case of Mckinsey [2021 (10) TMI 751 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we are of the view that the Ld. AO/TPO is not justified in charging interest on receivables without factoring in the payables to the AEs.
Working capital adjustment in the international transaction of rendering services - Hon’ble Delhi ITAT in Kusum Health Care Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (4) TMI 180 - ITAT DELHI] held that in case the differential impact of working capital of the assessee vis a vis its comparables has already been factored in the pricing/ profitability of the assessee, further adjustment to the margin of the assessee on the pretext of outstanding receivable is unwarranted and wholly unjustified.
In case of Ameriprise India P. Ltd. [2015 (8) TMI 652 - ITAT DELHI] considered the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case of Kusum Health Care and held that allowing working capital adjustment in the international transaction of rendering services have no impact on the determination of ALP of the international transaction of interest on receivables from AEs.
Having regard to the legal position set out above, we hold that the Ld. AO was not justified in making adjustment on account of interest on receivables in the facts and circumstances of the assessee’s case. Accordingly, the assessee succeeds.
-
2022 (12) TMI 888
Recovery of the outstanding dues of the private limited company - Liability of directors of private company u/s 179 - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that the Assessing Officer is required to make efforts for recovery of the outstanding dues from the assessee private limited company which has committed default in payment of the outstanding demand. The petitioners have prima facie shown that non recovery cannot be attributed to any gross negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty as Directors of the assessee company.
AO has failed to consider the fact that the petitioners have tendered their explanation and contended that the petitioners have challenged the order of assessment before the appellate authority and the petitioners have not remained negligent nor there is any misfeasance or beach of trust on part of the petitioners and only because the petitioners have been unable to deposit 20% of the demand raised in the assessment order to get stay from the appellate authority, the petitioners cannot be said to be negligent and respondent no.1 cannot therefore, invoke jurisdiction under section 179.
-
2022 (12) TMI 887
Assessment u/s 153A - Prior approval necessary for assessment in cases of search or requisition - Necessity to get approval to the draft assessment order was granted u/s 153D - HELD THAT:- Section 153D requires that the AO shall obtain prior approval of the Joint Commissioner in respect of "each assessment year" referred to in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A which provides for assessment in case of search under Section 132. Section 153A(1)(a) requires that the assessee on a notice issued to him by the Assessing Officer would be required to furnish the return of income in respect of "each assessment year" falling within six assessment years (and for the relevant assessment year or years), referred to in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A. The proviso to Section 153A further provides for assessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years (and for the relevant assessment year or years).
The careful and conjoint reading of Section 153A(1) and Section 153D leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to "each assessment year" is to be obtained by the Assessing Officer on the draft assessment order before passing the assessment order under Section 153A.
In the instant case, the draft assessment order in 85 cases, i.e. for 85 assessment years placed before the Approving Authority on 30.12.2017 was approved on same day i.e. 30.12.2017, which not only included the cases of respondent-assessee but the cases of other groups as well. It is humanly impossible to go through the records of 85 cases in one day to apply independent mind to appraise the material before the Approving Authority. The conclusion drawn by the Tribunal that it was a mechanical exercise of power, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the material on record.
The questions of law framed on the factual issues related to the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer are not open to agitate within the scope of the present appeal being in the nature of second appeal.
-
2022 (12) TMI 886
Assessment u/s 153C - one or more seized document, books of accounts or asset should belong to the assessee - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of the provision of Section 153C of the Act, as it stood at the relevant point in time, would demonstrate that the AO of the searched person i.e. Mr Satya Prakash, should have generated a note that the documents, books of account or assets belonging to the “other person” had been found.
We may also note that Mr Zoheb Hossain has, fairly, put before us the satisfaction note dated 02.02.2012, generated by the AO of the respondent/assessee, which discloses that there is no reference to any material or assets which belonged to the respondent/assessee. For completion of the record, the satisfaction note concerning the respondent/assessee as generated by his AO.
-
2022 (12) TMI 885
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - compensation received for cancellation of the plot to be in the nature of a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt - HED THAT:- A reading of the aforesaid Sections of the Act of 2012, evidences that the payment calculated @ 10% per annum over and above the premium by Government of Goa was not by way of interest but was statutorily in the nature of compensation and therefore, the said receipt cannot be treated as Assessee’s ‘Income from other sources’.
We also agree that the finding of the ITAT that in the present case, since the plot allotted to the Assessee was to be used by the Assessee for carrying on its business and was an income producing asset for this company, since the Assessee who is a real estate developer, intended to construct a building and further sub-lease or transfer such a building to third parties to earn income, it would constitute a capital asset as held by in the case of C.I.T., Bombay City v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn., Bombay,[1986 (7) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT]
The reference to a Power of an Attorney transaction in the grounds of appeal is incorrect since there was no Power of Attorney executed in favour of the Assessee as noted in the order of the PCIT.
The leasehold rights held by the Assessee in the plot was a Capital Asset and that the compensation received by the Assessee from the Government of Goa on the cancellation of the plot was a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt. It is trite law that if an agreement for transfer of rights in an immovable property is not performed by the transferor, the transferee is entitled for compensation as he/she is deprived of the price of escalation. Therefore, the character of payment received as compensation by the transferee bears the character of capital receipt. The payment of interest in the facts of the present case is compensatory in nature and therefore, does not bear the character of revenue receipt. We hold that the AO’s order was correct and it did not suffer from any error, justifying the invocation of the PCIT’s powers under Section 263 of the Act.
-
2022 (12) TMI 884
Non issuance of a notice u/s 143(2) on the revised return - filing of revised return on the last date - HELD THAT:- The assessment proceedings were set into motion. Now section 139(5) provides two situations to an assessee for revising its return of income, namely if an assessee after furnishing the return under section 139(1) or in response to notice under section 142(1) discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. The assessee has filed the revised return no doubt within one year from the end of the assessment year 2013-14 as well as before the end of the completion of the assessment proceedings.
The judgments, which are being referred by the ld. Counsel for the assessee are concerned, they propound that when revised return is being filed, then original return would obliterate. In other words, the original return would become redundant and the determination of taxable income is to be made on the basis of revised return. In none of the cases, it has been propounded that 143(2) notice was must on the revised return, otherwise whole assessment proceeding would vitiate. Let us explain the situation in a different manner also.
Section 139(5) authorizes the assessee to file the return before completion of the assessment order. In the present case, assessment order has been passed on 18.03.2016. Hearing must have been concluded 2-3 days prior to this date because AO has to draft the assessment order. On 17th March, assessee filed a revised return without the knowledge of the AO because such return in A.Y. 2013-14 would be filed at the receipt counter. Can assessment order would be declared nullity for not issuing 143(2) notice on such return, because it is quite impossible at the end of the ld. Assessing Officer to take cognizance of such a fact in such a short period of time. This type of step can be taken at the end of an assessee for frustrating the whole assessment machinery.
Yes, once a revised return is being filed, certainly its figure can be taken into consideration as propounded in the various decisions cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. Therefore, in our opinion, it was only an irregularity and not an illegality. It could have been cured by the ld. 1st Appellate Authority by calling a remand report from the ld. Assessing Officer after re-determination of the income on the basis of revised return, but to declare the assessment order as a null and void is not in accordance with law.
On due consideration of all these facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and restore this issue to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer.
-
2022 (12) TMI 883
Revision u/s 263 - prima facie opinion that the order passed by the AO is erroneous, insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue - As per CIT AO Failed to verify the sources of cash deposits made and bring the unexplained deposit therein to tax AND Failed to examine the low profits/income declared from the liquor business and accepting without proper enquiry - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that u/s. 263 of the Act, the PCIT does have the power to set aside the assessment order and send the matter for a fresh assessment if he is satisfied that further enquiry is necessary and the assessment order is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. However, in doing so, the PCIT must have some material which would enable to form a prima facie opinion that the order passed by the AO is erroneous, insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
In the present case of the assessee it is clear from the order of the AO which is extracted above, the AO has verified all these details as submitted by the assessee and has applied his mind while concluding the assessment accepting the income returned by the assessee. We see merit in the submission of the ld AR that the license is given to P S Associates vide partnership deed and there was no requirement for a separate license deed to be entered in this regard.
The entire premise on which the PCIT has exercised the revisionary power is that the AO should have conducted further enquiries. PCIT has not brought anything on record to shown adverse effect of the lack of enquiry or any material to show that there been an error in the order that is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The views of the ld. PCIT as given in the order u/s.263, in our opinion, is not the right reason for exercising revisionary powers u/s. 263 as the error envisaged by Section 263 of the Act is not one that depends on possibility as a guess work, but it should be actually an error either of fact or of law.
PCIT is not justified in setting aside the order of the AO and accordingly we hold that the order of the PCIT u/s. 263 is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 882
Long term capital gain - cost price for cost inflation index - HELD THAT:- As per the provision of section 45 any profits or gain arising from the transfer of capital asset effected in the previous year shall be deemed to the income of the previous year in which transfer took place. Since in the case of the appellant transfer took place during the year therefore AO has correctly taxed the capital gain for the year under consideration and addition made by the AO is hereby confirmed.
Disallowance of production expenses - CIT (A) confirmed the addition by noting that it is an admitted fact that assessee was unable to produce any evidence in respect of expenses - HELD THAT:- Upon careful consideration and going through the assessment order ld. CIT (A)’s order, we find that the impugned additions and disallowances are made on cogent footings. Nothing has been brought to our notice to controvert the finding of AO and CIT (A). Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT (A) and we affirm the same.
As we find that the impugned additions and disallowances are made on cogent footings. Nothing has been brought to our notice to controvert the finding of AO and ld. CIT (A). Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. CIT (A) and we affirm the same. Appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 881
Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - Taxability of amount received for Consulting and Engineering services as Fees for technical services (FTS) - India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement - Management Fees & Common Cost recharge - HELD THAT:- As decided in own [2019 (4) TMI 605 - ITAT MUMBAI] held the amount received towards consulting engineering services to be not in the nature of fees for technical services, the reasoning of the departmental authorities with regard to cost recharge would also fail, since, they have treated it as ancillary and incidental to consulting engineering services. The, contention of the learned Departmental Representative that the cost recharge fails various tests, such as, need test, benefit test etc. is unacceptable, it is contrary to the finding of the Departmental Authorities. Once, the Departmental Authorities have treated the amount received towards cost recharge to be in the nature fees for technical services, it implies rendering of service by the assessee. Therefore, applying the very same reason on the basis of which we have held the amount received towards consulting engineering services to be not in the nature of fees for technical services as discussed above, we hold that the amount received towards cost recharge cannot be brought to tax in India in the absence of PE. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer are hereby deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (12) TMI 880
Adjustment of bad debts for the purpose of book profits u/s.115JB - HELD THAT:- If the provision for bad and doubtful debts which is debited to the P&L account would constitute actual write off if the same is reduced from loans & dvances / debtors to reflect the net balance in the statement of financials. In assessee’s case, in the financials for the year ended 31.3.2012 [pg. 30 & 57 of PB], we notice that the assessee had shown the net amount for trade receivables after adjusting the provision for doubtful debts. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank [2010 (4) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT] in our view the assessee has actually written off the bad debts as of 31.03.2012.
Assessee has written of the debts which is an asset and therefore the CIT(A) has correctly considered the issue under clause (i) and not under clause (c). The plain reading of the above provisions make it clear that the provision made towards diminution in the value of asset has to be added. In assessee’s has we have already held that the bad debts have been actually written of and is not a provision following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vijaya Bank [2010 (4) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT]. Accordingly, the actual write off of the asset cannot be considered as an addition under clause (i) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB.
With regard to the contention of the ld DR that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd [2011 (8) TMI 766 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] is not applicable, in our view though the question of law relates to whether the Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that the provisions made for bad and doubtful debts cannot be added back in accordance with the Explanation (c) to Section 115JB(1) of the Act, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court is that the if the bad debt or doubtful debt is reduced from the loans and advances or the debtors from the assets side of the balance sheet the Explanation to Section 115JA or JB is not at all attracted. We therefore hold that the bad debts which is reduced from the asset side of the debts which amounts to actual write off cannot be adjusted for the purpose of book profits u/s.115JB. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (12) TMI 879
Exemption u/s 11 - deemed registration u/s 12AA - assessee has not filed copy of application filed in Form- 10A for registration u/s 12AA, nor any evidence that the assessee made any request before ld CIT(E) for claiming registration from alleged earlier application file in 2011 - HELD THAT:- We find that though, the assessee is claiming to have filed application for registration u/s 12AA in the year 2011 and also furnished copy of such application - Assessee failed to furnish any evidence whether such application was registered in the office of CIT(E) or not or any further query was raised by the ld. CIT(E). One sided correspondence, unless it is acknowledged by other party would not be considered as the application of assessee was pending or not for similar registration. As recorded above, the assessee was allowed registration u/s 12AA from the date of application, which we find in order.
The ratio of decisions of various case laws relied by the ld. AR of the assessee are not helpful to him. The ratio of all those case laws are altogether different. In none of the case law, the assessee was allowed registration form retrospective date.
The case law relied by ld. CIT-DR for the revenue in Harshit Foundation [2022 (5) TMI 179 - SC ORDER] wherein as held that there is no specific provision in the Income Tax Act that non-deciding the registration application under Section 12AA within a period of six months there shall be a deemed registration. Thus, the ratio of this decision is directly applicable on the facts of the present case. Even otherwise, the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court is a binding precedent by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Thus, we do not find any merit in various grounds of appeal raised by assessee - Appeal of assessee is dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 878
Penalty us/ 271(1)(c) - assessee understated its income by claiming excessive depreciation on dumpers, tata 207, truck, excavator, drilling machine & water Tank - HELD THAT:- Penalty confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) holding that the assessee had deliberately and intentionally not disclosed the true and correct income and had furnished inaccurate particulars of income with the intention to evade tax. Thus the ld. CIT(A) sustained the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
The Bench has gone through the entire case of the assessee but found that the assessee could neither substantiate its case nor controvert the findings of the lower authorities. In this situation, we have no other alternative except to concur with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Thus the appeal of the assessee is dismissed
............
|
9911796707
