|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 9304 Records
-
2022 (12) TMI 1491
TDS u/s 195 - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) - payment made to non residents - HELD THAT:- Disallowance made u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act, vide order [2015 (2) TMI 1400 - ITAT CHENNAI] the Tribunal has noted that neither the Assessing nor the ld. CIT(A) discussed the factual aspects of the issue and therefore, the issue has been remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine all the facts and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. It appears according to the submissions made by both the parties that the AO has already passed the order for the assessment year 2009-10 and the appeal is pending before the ld. CIT(A).
We are of the considered opinion that similar issue raised in the appeals for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2011-12 should also go back to the ld. CIT(A) to a decision on facts and also on law. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law.
Disallowance u/s 14A - CIT(A) is directed to decide the issue afresh after obtaining remand report on the fresh evidences produced by the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings.
Both the grounds raised by the assessee are also remitted back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1487
Accrual of income in India - Alleged Permanent Establishment ('PE’) in India of the Appellant under the Article 5(1) and 5(2)(i) of the India - UAE Tax Treaty (‘Tax Treaty’) - HELD THAT:-. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. We find force in the contention of the Counsel the coordinate Bench in A.Y. 2014-15 [2021 (3) TMI 1440 - ITAT DELHI] has followed the findings of the Tribunal given in earlier assessment years while dismissing the ground find that the assessee has met the twin criterion of existence of a fixed place of business and carrying out of business from such fixed place of business as enunciated of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgan Stanley & Co. [2007 (7) TMI 201 - SUPREME COURT] - The claim of the assessee that they did not have a place at their disposal cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Formula One World Championships Ltd. [2017 (4) TMI 1109 - SUPREME COURT], in the case of Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] and also E-funds IT Solutions [2017 (10) TMI 1011 - SUPREME COURT] - The facts on record undisputedly prove that the premises AHL are at the disposal of the assessee for conduct of their business. While coming to the issue of "at the disposal" in the premises is available for the assessee for running of their business even for a limited time it constitutes a PE - Decided against the assessee.
Attribution of profits to alleged PE of the Appellant in India inspite of entity level operating losses - alternative taxation of India source income as ‘Royalty’ under Section 9(l)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) and Article 12 of the Tax Treaty - We find that the identical issue raised in the present appeal, has already been adjudicated in [2021 (7) TMI 1440 - ITAT DELHI] to hold that the revenue's earned by the assessee are taxable under Article 12 of the DTAA. Regarding the determination of the profit, taken up at ground No. 4 by the assessee, we hereby hold that the taxable profits may be computed in accordance with the provisions of Section 44DA of Indian Income Tax Act and Article 12 of Indo-UAE, DTAA.
During the arguments, it was also submitted that the assessee has incurred losses in the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee be given an opportunity of submitting the working of apportionment of revenue, losses etc. on financial year basis with respect to the work done in entirety by furnishing the global profits earned by the assesse, so that the profits attributable to the work done by the PE can be determined judiciously. The same may be considered while determining the taxable profits in India in accordance with the provisions of Section 90(2).
Thus the issue of attribution of profit to the Permanent Established (PE) is accordingly restored to the file of Assessing officer for deciding in the light of the direction of the Tribunal in AY 2013-14, as reproduced above. Appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1485
Income taxable in India - Investment made in Mutual Fund as assessable to tax in India - HELD THAT:- It is clear the source of the fund is from outside India and not taxable in India. The assessee could not produce these documents during time barring period of reassessment, when the same were more than six years old documents to be obtained from the bankers.
CIT(A) directed the AO to obtain from the assessee, the certified True Copies of the above documents from Standard Chartered Bank and the assessee shall bound to furnish the same, before the AO while giving effect to the appellate order. The ld. CIT(A) further directed the A.O. having satisfied himself that the source of such investment is from outside India shall delete the addition made by him. We do not find any infirmity in the direction issued by the CIT(A)
CIT(A) having satisfied with the copies of the documents submitted by the assessee, has taken a conscious decision to delete the additions, since the funds are NRI Repatriation funds came outside India and is not taxable in India. Assessee also produced before us a copy of giving effect order dated 04.11.2020 passed by the AO deleting the addition made by him. Grounds raised by the Revenue does not have any merits and the same are hereby rejected.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1484
Disallowance of expenses u/s 14A - addition to the book profits of the assessee u/s115JB of the Act the amount of total disallowance computed u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- We hold that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act of expenses incurred for the purposes of earning exempt income be restricted to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee during the year in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of the assessee itself as cited before us. [2019 (7) TMI 541 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]
Further, we direct that no adjustment be made to the book profits of the assessee under Section 115JB of the Act of the expenses disallowed under Section 14A of the Act again following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of the assessee itself and the Special Bench of the ITAT in the case of Vireet Investment Private Limited [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI]
Deduction u/s 80IA - Captive Power Generation Plants - Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in own case in Tax Appeal Nos. 11 & 28 of 2019 vide order dated 17.06.2019.[2019 (7) TMI 541 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that it was the selling price of electricity which was to be considered for determining the Revenue generated from sale to CPP for the purposes of computing profits eligible to deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Act, applying the ratio laid down by it in the case of Gujarat Alkalies [2016 (10) TMI 1111 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]
DR was unable to point out any distinguishing facts nor was any contrary decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court or the Hon’ble Apex Court brought to our notice. Thus since the issue already stands decided in favour of the assessee in its own case by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) of deduction claimed under Section 80IA of the Act.
Characterization of receipt - revenue from Carbon credit - revenue or capital receipt - HELD THAT:- The issue being covered by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in favour of the assessee in its own case, we hold that the profit earned by the assessee for Carbon Credits is capital in nature; and, the addition made by the Revenue by treating them as revenue in nature is directed to be deleted.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1483
Denial of exemption u/s 11 - non-submission of audit report in Form 10B alongwith or before filing the ITR - non-compliance with communication u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act due to IT Website technical glitches - HELD THAT:- We note that, the ITR for the impugned AY was filed on 13/07/2018 and notice calling the audit report u/s 143(1)(a) was served on 28/02/2019 according thereby 30 days to remove deficiency by filing audit report in Form No 10B, however in the absence of any such compliance from the appellant, ITR was finally processed on 26/06/2019 denying the exemption, which the Ld. FAA upheld quoting equi-reasons.
We also note that, the assessee could not attend the communication due to IT-Website technical glitches, however has eventually filed the audit report in Form No 10B on 29/02/2020 and complied with the condition laid in section 12A(1)(b) so as to entitle for a claim of exemption envisaged u/s 11 & 12 of the Act.
In the evince of details filed at clause M2 of ITR filed on 13/07/2018, it undisputedly establishes that the appellant got its books audited u/s 12A(1)(b) of the Act from M/s S. D. Pednekar & Co which issued & furnished the said audit report on 05/07/2017 i.e. prior to filing of ITR for the impugned AY, however the copy thereof remained to be filed alongwith ITR as well in response to communication u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act on account of technical glitches beyond the control of the assessee and the deficiency came to light only upon service of demand u/s 156 of the Act.
Thus, the non-compliance with communication u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act due to IT Website technical glitches was unintentional and beyond the control of the appellant is sufficient to form a reasonable cause for non-compliance and since the procedural compliance has been duly made good by fling the audit report on record, we see no reason to deny the exemption in the present facts and circumstance, ergo we set-aside the order of both the tax authorities below and direct the Ld. AO to grant the claim of exemption in the evince of Form No 10B. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1481
Carry forward accumulated business losses of the earlier years - correct year for consideration of the issue of eligibility of set off brought forward business loss against business income - HELD THAT:- The undisputed fact is that while concluding assessment the AO declared that the loss computed is not allowed to be carried forward. In our considered opinion all that the AO is required is to notify the assessee the amount of loss as computed by him. Whether the loss in any year may be carried forward to the following year and set off against the profits has to be determined by the AO who deals with the assessment of the subsequent year. It is for the ITO dealing with the assessment in the subsequent year to determine whether the loss of the previous year may be set off against the profits of that year.
As relying on the case of Manmohan Das [1965 (11) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT] no hesitation in directing the AO to expunge the concluding remark “brought forward loss is not allowed to be carry forward”. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1480
Set off of excess application of income for the subsequent years - Carry forward of the deficit/loss for trust - assessment of trust - HELD THAT:- As during the year under consideration the assessee had applied income more than 85% of its total income however, it claimed accumulation of income u/s 11(1)(a) to the extent of 15% of total income that came to a sum of Rs. 38,05,443/- however, the AO restricted the accumulation to the extent of surplus available of Rs. 20,34,215/-.
A bare reading of the section 11(1)(a) of the Act goes to prove that any income accumulated or set apart should not exceed 15% of total income. In the present case, the assessee had applied more than 85% of the income that does not mean that in excess of 85% of income, the assessee has accumulated or set apart for charitable purpose.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Matriseva Trust [1999 (3) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein as followed the judgment in the case of CIT vs Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation[1986 (7) TMI 56 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] and in the case of CIT vs Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal (1993 (11) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein as answered the questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1477
Revision u/s 263 - claim of deduction of the impugned interest on Perpetual Non-Convertible Debentures (PNCDs) - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings itself had submitted the entire facts of the case by placing reliance on various provisions of the Companies Act and SEBI Regulations and had also taken efforts to explain the meaning of the term “debentures”, “debts”, “bonds”, “shares” etc., under provisions of various Acts.
The main case of the Revenue is only that the perpetual debentures issued are akin to equity and hence, it does not fall under the ambit of borrowing and accordingly, no interest would become allowable on the said alleged borrowing. In this regard, we find that assessee had already explained the very same query before the AO at the time of assessment proceedings itself which is evident from the reply filed by the assessee which is reproduced hereinabove at the beginning of the order. Moreover, we also find that these bonds were indeed repaid by the assessee on 18/03/2021 with interest and on 11/05/2021 with interest. The evidences in this regard are enclosed and the fact of repayment of these borrowings with interest had also been duly notified by the assessee to BSE Ltd. and NSE Ltd as per the requirement of SEBI regulations.
This categorically goes to prove that it is not a case of equity and the issue of perpetual bonds is only borrowing made by the assessee. Since the said borrowing has been used for business purposes of the assessee, the interest paid thereon would be squarely allowable as deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Hence, even on merits, the action of the ld. PCIT would have no legs to stand.
Thus we have no hesitation in quashing the revision order passed by the ld. PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed
-
2022 (12) TMI 1474
Revision u/s 263 - taxability of undisclosed expenses as declared in survey action - case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny - As per CIT income declared during the survey was also charged to tax at normal rate instead of charging at special rate at 60% as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act which is in violation of Section 68 to 69C r.w.s. 115BBE - HELD THAT:- We find that the case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and for limited scrutiny, AO issued necessary questionnaire about seeking details of bank accounts and other related information and evidences. The assessee in its reply, furnished such details of bank statement and other information. AO after taking such reply, completed the assessment on 18/12/2019 without any variation.
CIT in its show cause notice, identified the issue which was not the subject matter of limited scrutiny. In the show cause notice, the ld. Pr. CIT raised the issue that survey action was conducted on the assessee firm in relevant financial year and that the assessee made declaration of Rs. 1.24 crore on account of undisclosed expenses. We find that such issue was not the subject matter of scrutiny, hence, the Assessing Officer was not entitled to raise such question.
We find that in Balvinder Kumar [2021 (3) TMI 649 - ITAT DELHI] has held that “in case of limited scrutiny, AO could not go beyond reason for which matter was selected for limited scrutiny thus, it would not be open to Principal Commissioner to pass revisionary order u/s 263 on other aspects and remit matter to AO for fresh assessment.”
The Supreme Court in celebrated/ leading case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] held that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo-motu is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If one of them is absent - if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the revenue - recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of the Act.
Thus the twin condition as required to revise the assessment order is not meet out in the present case, therefore, the order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT is set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1472
Suppression of professional receipts from the patients under OPD category - assessee has shown some “Zero Receipt Patients” in IPD” indoor patient department - On analysis of disc of computer during the search action, it was noted that many patients were operated but payments made by them, are not accounted in the books of account and such patients were referred as “Zero Receipt Patients-IPD” - CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 30% of alleged suppressed receipt by taking view that only profit element of reasonable basis should be taxed - HELD THAT:- AO has granted concession of two patients in respect of other hospitals for treatment of free patients, however, no such concession was allowed in case of assessee-hospital. It is a common factor that a privately managed hospital has to treat second category of patients as free-of-cost, which may include relatives of doctors, para-medical staffs, close relatives or family friends etc., During the hearing, we also find that certain patients which were closely related with the partners of assessee-hospital.
Thus, we find that the Assessing Officer has made addition without being confronting information collected by her at the back of assessee-hospital. No show cause notice before making such addition on account of suppressed addition, therefore the addition is not justified.
We further find that allegation of suppressed income for A.Y 2008-09 is of Rs. 148,000, however, the assessee-hospital had paid the tax of Rs. 33,17,496/-and the partners had paid tax of Rs. 28,22,084/-thus total tax of Rs. 61,39,580/-was paid. Thus, we find merit in the submission made by Ld. AR for the assessee that allegation of suppress receipt of IPD patients of is not tenable. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire addition of suppressed receipt on account of IPD patients. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1470
Levy of penalty u/s 270A - misreporting of income in case of property sold jointly by brothers - search conducted at third party - CIT(A) deleted penalty levy - HED THAT:- We observe that search was conducted at the premises of the third party and on the basis of diary seized during the course of search, certain additions were offered to tax by the assessee in order to buy peace. Since the search was conducted during the year under consideration, the accounts of the assessee were not finalised and there was still time for the assessee to file return of income. Accordingly, the addition amount offered to tax was reflected in the return of income filed by the assessee on 08-03-2018.
On a perusal of the conditions laid out u/s 270A case of the assessee does not fall under any of the provisions of section 270A of the Act. Since the search took place during the year under consideration at the premises of third party, and there was still time to file return of income, the said income in respect of on-money receipts was included in the income offered to tax by the assessee in the return of income.
Even the AO in the penalty order has failed to specify under which specific clause of section 270A of the Act does the case of the assessee fall under. CIT(Appeals) in his appellate order has analysed the non-applicability of the provisions of section 270A of the Act in the instant set of facts. Accordingly no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) deleting penalty imposed under section 270A Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1467
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Suo moto disallowance of the assessee - Mandation of recording satisfaction by AO - HELD THAT:- We find justification in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the A.O.’s action in invoking the provision of Rule 8D(2)(ii) by rejecting the assessee’s contention that suo moto disallowance by the assessee warrants no further disallowances.
The assessee’s alternate claim is that the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) should be restricted only to those investments on which exempt income was earned by the assessee during the impugned year, by placing reliance on the decision of Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] is acceptable.
We uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) in directing the A.O. to recompute the disallowance only to the investments which have yielded exempt income during the impugned year. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1466
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - allegation against the petitioner is that it has received bogus entry from an entry provider one Mr Ramesh Kumar Bagri - HELD THAT:- As would be evident upon perusal of the certificate CBI has stated that the amount was neither remitted nor credited from the accounts of the petitioner maintained with it.
Insofar as the other certificate CBI makes the same assertion and goes on to confirm that the remittance was not made to the account number said to be maintained by Mr Ramesh Bagri.
As we have before us, in the very least, the certificate dated 01.08.2022, which indicates that the petitioner had not remitted Rs.1,76,00,000/- on 12.08.2015 from its bank accounts maintained with CBI, it appears that, at least at this juncture, there was no information or material available with the concerned authority to trigger proceedings u/s 148/148A(d) of the Act..
List the matter on 11.04.2023.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1464
TP Adjustment - ALP for corporate guarantee determined by the Appellant - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the above said decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal in the case of the Appellant for the Assessment Years 2011-12 [2021 (10) TMI 822 - ITAT MUMBAI], 2012-13 [2021 (4) TMI 254 - ITAT MUMBAI], 2013-14 [2021 (10) TMI 453 - ITAT MUMBAI] and 2014-15 [2021 (4) TMI 254 - ITAT MUMBAI], we hold that corporate guarantee commission determined by the Appellant at the rate of 0.35% per cent per annum is at arm’s length not requiring any transfer pricing adjustment. Consequently, the transfer pricing additions made by the AO and confirmed by the DRP is deleted.
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - mandate of recording dissatisfaction - HELD THAT:- In the present case the dissatisfaction has been recorded, however, the same is not in accordance with mandate of Section 14A(2) of the Act as the Assessing Officer has acted in a mechanical manner based upon conjecture/surmise and has recorded dissatisfaction without having regard to the accounts of the Appellant and/or the computation of suo moto disallowance made by the Appellant u/s 14A of the Act.
The general hypothesis made by the AO fails to meet the mandate of Section 14A(2) of the Act in view of the methodical computation of disallowance furnished by the Appellant taking into the account the actual expenditure incurred by the Appellant. Accordingly, we delete the addition made by AO u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Thus, Ground raised by the Appellant are allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1462
Recovery of Tax - waiver of interest - CIT had partially allowed the claim of the petitioner for waiver of interest charged under Section 220(2) - quantum of depreciation on theatre building - As in the two assessment years, the assessee had claimed 15% and 25% respectively, depreciation was allowed by the Assessing Officer to the extent of 10 per cent. only in the two orders of assessment
HELD THAT:- As decided in Anand Theatres [2000 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT].a building used for running of a hotel or carrying on cinema business could not be held to be a plant.Thus the question decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee by holding that the building which is used as a hotel or as a cinema theatre cannot be given depreciation as a plant.
For the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to exercise jurisdiction under Sub-Section (2A) for reduction or waiver of interest, the said authority must be satisfied that Payment of such amount would cause or has caused genuine hardship to the assessee, Default in the payment of the amount on which interest has been paid or was payable under Sub-Section (2) of Section 220 was due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and assessee had co-operated in any enquiry relating to the assessment or any proceeding for the recovery of any amount due from him.
Considering the status of the petitioner, a view can be taken that none of the above pre-conditions were attracted in its case. Nonetheless substantial relief has been granted by the CIT/1st respondent.
Writ petition dismissed considering the status of the assessee, none of the preconditions mentioned in section 220(2A) were satisfied in its case. No good ground to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner granting partial waiver of interest.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1460
Reopening of assessment - petitioner was a beneficiary of accommodation entries - HELD THAT:- On facts, the case on hand is not the case where the assessee willfully made any false or untrue statement at the time of original assessment or that falsity has come to the notice, which may justify the assessing officer to exercise the powers.
The case is not only of reopening the completed assessment on the same facts without availability of fresh and tangible material, it was reopening acted upon beyond period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The law requires, in such cases, that the reopening is permitted only if the assessee had not disclosed fully and truly all the material facts. There was no failure on the part of the petitioner (i) to make return under section 139 or in respect to notice u/s 142(2) or u/s 148 or that (ii) he had not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment concerned.
The assessee in the present case furnished complete details in his letter dated 08.10.2014 during the assessment with respect to the transaction occured with Shubh Dristi Complex Pvt. Ltd.[alleged accomodation entry provider] - There was no omission on the part of the petitioner as to full and true disclosure for the year under consideration which were necessary for the assessment concerned.
Thus it has to be held that the action of reopening by the AO was bad in law, mainly for the reason that it was passed on a mere change of opinion on the same set of facts, which was disclosed and considered by the assessing officer during the assessment year 2012-13. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1459
Reopening of assessment - Validity of order passed u/s 148A - why two PAN numbers were obtained by the appellants / assessee? - HELD THAT:- Order passed u/s 148A(d) is a non-speaking order. Appellants had submitted a reply to the notice issued u/s 148A (b) wherein assessee has pointed out as to how and under what circumstances two PAN numbers were applied and the fact that one of the PAN numbers was surrendered, was also set out.
AO should examine the correctness of the stand taken by the appellants, which according to the appellants, was an inadvertent mistake. As we are satisfied that the order is a non-speaking order, we are inclined to interfere with the same and remand the matter back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration and preserving the direction issued by the learned Single Bench directing the appellants to submit a representation.
Appeal along with the connected application are disposed of by setting aside the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act and the matter stands remanded and restored to the file of the assessing officer.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1458
Taxability of profits of life insurance business - transfer from Share Holders Account to Policy Holder’s Account and shown as part of ‘surplus’ in the actuarial valuation’ - Whether was only transfer asset and not taxable u/s 44 of the act read with Rule 2 of the First Schedule? - HELD THAT:- Said position qua the issue in question as decided by co-ordinate bench of Tribunal vide order [2017 (3) TMI 1696 - ITAT MUMBAI] has not been controverted by Ld.DR, we are of the considered view that when undisputedly, the assessee is carrying on life insurance business, its income is to be determined u/s 44 of the Act by taking into account total surplus as arrived at by actuarial valuation and further income from share holder account was also to be taxed as part of the life insurance business. So finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned findings returned by Ld.CIT(A), grounds 1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
Addition u/s 10(23AAB) - Loss from Pension Fund - HELD THAT:- As we are of the considered view that Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of loss from Pension Fund being exemption under section 10(23AAB) of the Act. So we find no scope to interfere into the finding by Ld.CIT(A).
-
2022 (12) TMI 1457
Reopening of assessment - shorter period to file the reply - HELD THAT:- Writ petitioner-assessee had time till 31.03.2022 to send a reply. To put it in perspective, the writ petitioner-assessee had time till 59 minutes past 23 hours on 31.03.2022. There is also no disputation that the writ petitioner's reply was sent on 31.03.2022 and it has been duly acknowledged by the respondent at 21:19:24 hours but the respondent has made the impugned order about over an hour earlier i.e., at 19:56 hours on the same day. This means that the respondent has made the impugned order before the time given to the assessee for replying to the 148A(b) notice dated 25.03.2022 elapsed. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with on this sole ground
Impugned order and impugned notice are set aside on the sole ground that the impugned order has been made before the time for writ petitioner-assessee to reply to the 148A(b) notice elapsed and the writ petitioner-assessee has in fact sent a reply before the time elapsed.
Impugned order and impugned notice are set aside solely to facilitate the de novo drill after taking into account the reply of writ petitioner. To be noted, the impugned notice is a consequence or a product of the impugned order and therefore, impugned notice also perishes with the impugned order.
The respondent shall proceed with the de novo drill from the 148A(b) notice dated 25.03.2022 by taking into account the reply of the writ petitioner-assessee dated 31.03.2022 sent on 31.03.2022 [acknowledged by respondent at 21:19:24 hours].
-
2022 (12) TMI 1453
Addition u/s 40A(3) - payment has been made in cash in excess of Rs.20,000/- per day - making cash payment to suppliers, who are principal suppliers / traders and not agent of any farmer, grower etc.- AO noted that the rule refers to agricultural ‘produce’ and not to agricultural ‘product’ and therefore, the claim could not be accepted since the rice could not be termed as agricultural ‘produce’ - HELD THAT:- From the fact, it emerges that the assessee is a corporate entity and this is the first year of its operations. Therefore, the submissions that the suppliers insisted on cash payment before delivery of rice and the payment was made as per regular trade practice could not be disregarded. The assessee would have no option but to follow the existing rice trading practice to carry on its business.
It could also be seen that agriculture produce is nowhere defined in the Act. In such a case, the assistance could be taken from the provision of Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987 which define agricultural produce to mean any produce of agriculture whether processed or unprocessed as specified in the schedule. The schedule specifies ‘Rice in all forms’ as agricultural produce under Cereals. The same would support the case of the assessee in terms of Rule 6DD(e)(i).
The application of Rule 6DD(k) as applied by CIT(A) is duly supported by the decision of this Tribunal in Shri K. Babu [2019 (7) TMI 1995 - ITAT CHENNAI] from which an analogy could be drawn that the rice mill acted as agent for the assessee. Therefore, the same could not be faulted with.
........
|
9911796707
