|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1346 Records
-
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 1288
Seeking early hearing of appeal - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the fact that the matter has been pending before the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that it would be appropriate in the interest of justice, if the learned Single Judge is requested to dispose of the matter expeditiously preferably by the end of February, 2021.
The parties are at liberty to complete the pleadings within a period of two weeks from today - The learned Single Judge is requested to deal with the matter on day to day basis particularly having regard to allegedly large amount which is being taken by one of the parties without any account.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1287
Levy of GST - GTA Services - diesel filled free of cost by the service recipient in the engaged chartered (dedicated) vehicles, would form part of value of supply of service charged by the applicant or not - HELD THAT:- The applicant in the instant case is required to provide trucks / trailers on a day to day basis along with the driver and report at the unit of the service recipient and the fuel for providing such service has been kept within the scope of the service recipient and not in the scope of work of the applicant. Thereafter the applicant will be issuing consignment note /bilty for each vehicle load / consignment. As per Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017, “goods transport agency” or GTA means any person who provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note, by whatever name called.
There can be no dispute whatsoever: as regards the fact that fuel forms the single most important factor in rendering Goods Transport Service by a GTA and to visualize a Goods Transport Agency providing Goods Transport service without having any obligation or responsibility towards fuel / fuel cost is inconceivable. Cost of Fuel is definitely a consideration for the said supply as per the definition of “consideration” supra, in the course of furtherance of business and forms the most vital part in the intended supply of goods transport service by a GTA. Goods Transport Agency or GTA provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and to perceive provision of this service without the element of fuel, can in no way be a logical or workable proposition - if the proposed concept of provision of “free of cost diesel” by the service receiver for the instant supply of service of transportation of goods by road that too unaccounted by the service provider CIA, is justifiable it becomes all the more inconceivable to visualize a situation when the service receiver would besides providing free of cost diesel would also be providing “free of cost trucks/trailers” for the instant supply.
It is also seen that subsection (4) to Section 15 of the CGST Act, 2017 provides that where the value of the supply of goods or services or both cannot be determined under sub-section (1), the same shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed. In the instant case, as price doesn't appear to be the sole consideration for the supply in question, in as much as diesel the most important ingredient consumable required for rendering the said supply of service of transportation by the applicant GTA is being provided by the service receiver, resort has to be taken to the valuation rules as prescribed - in the instant case in hand, where the supply of service being rendered is transportation of goods by road by the applicant GTA, and as diesel being provided free of cost being a consideration not wholly in money, the value of such supply shall be the sum total of consideration in money and such further amount in money as is equivalent to the consideration not in money which is known at the time of supply. This also goes on to substantiate that the cost of diesel provided by service receiver is to be considered for arriving at the GST liability in such supply.
In the instant transaction by the applicant diesel filled free of cost by the service recipient in the engaged chartered (dedicated) vehicles would form part of value of supply of service charged by the applicant and accordingly GST at the applicable rate would also be leviable on value inclusive of the cost of diesel filled by the service recipient, under GTA service.
-
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 1285
Levy of IGST under Reverse Charge Mechanism - deemed Ocean Freight on import of goods (raw material) on CIF basis - inter-state supply or not - HELD THAT:- An importer of goods is liable to pay 5% IGST under reverse charge on services by way of transportation of goods by a vessel from a place outside India up to the Customs station of clearance in India, provided by a person located in non-taxable territory to a person located in non-taxable territory and in case actual value of service (actual value of freight) is not known to importer, the same shall be deemed to be 10% of the CIF value of imported goods - Import of goods has been defined in the IGST Act, 2017 as bringing goods into India from a place outside India. All imports shall be deemed as inter-State supplies and accordingly Integrated tax shall be levied in addition to the applicable Custom duties. The IGST Act, 2017 provides that the integrated tax on goods imported into India shall be levied and collected in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 on the value as determined under the said Act at the point when duties of customs are levied on the said goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The integrated tax on goods shall be in addition to the applicable Basic Customs Duty (BCD) which is levied as per the Customs Tariff Act. In addition, GST compensation cess, may also be leviable on certain luxury and demerit goods under the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Cess Act, 2017.
Under the GST regime, Article 269 A constitutionally mandates that the supply of goods, or of services, or both in the course of import into the territory of India shall be deemed to be supply of goods, or of services, or both in the course of inter-State trade or commerce for levy of integrated tax. So, import of goods or services will be treated as deemed inter-State supplies and would be subject to Integrated tax - While IGST on import of services would be leviable under the IGST Act on reverse charge basis, the levy of the IGST on import of goods would be levied under the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Custom Tariff Act, 1975. Accordingly, the concept of “double taxation” propounded by the applicant in their application is thus found to be unsubstantiated, bereft of merit.
In the instant case, the applicant appears to be questioning the veracity and validity of levy of IGST on ocean freight under reverse charge mechanism, as stipulated under the aforesaid Notifications issued by the Central Government, on the recommendations of the GST council deriving powers as envisaged under section 5, subsection (1) of section 6 and clause (iii) and clause (iv) of section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (13 of 2016) road with sub-section (5) of section 15 and sub-section (1) of section 16 of the Central Goods and Services fax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) and under sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (13 of 2017).
In terms of prevailing provisions of the IGST Act, 2017 and the Rules made there under, the applicant in addition to IGST on import of goods levied under the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Custom Tariff Act, 1975 would also be liable to pay IGST on deemed ocean freight under reverse charge mechanism as stipulated under Notification No. 10/2017-I.T.(Rate) read with Notification No. 8/2017-I.T.(Rate).
-
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 1279
Valuation - Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - allegation that the Reserve price of ₹ 52.83 Crores has been kept at a dismal low - valuation is challenged on the ground that valuers have proceeded on the basis of wrong assumption that the land in question is Agricultural in nature, whereas, it is an industrial land - Regulation 35(3) & (4) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process)’ Regulation, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The appeals are dismissed.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1278
Seeking continuing detention of the Appellants to serve out the remaining sentence - Minimum duration of imprisonment - imposition of punishment less than the minimum sentence prescribed by the statute - benefit of probation under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - HELD THAT:- The facts of the present case are that the Appellants have not served out the minimum sentence of 7 years though they have served about half the sentences. They were aged under 19 & 21 years of age as on the date of offence but not on the date of sentence. The redeeming feature in their case is that the person who suffered, appears to have forgiven them, possibly with the passage of time. There is no adverse report against them about their conduct in jail otherwise the same would have been brought to our notice by learned Counsel for the State. Faced with the aforesaid legal position, this is a fit case that the benefit of probation can be extended to the Appellants under the said act in view of the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act on completion of half the sentence.
The Appellants are released on probation of good conduct Under Section 4 of the said Act on their completion of half the sentence and on their entering into a bond with two sureties each to ensure that they maintain peace and good behaviour for the remaining part of their sentence, failing which they can be called upon to serve that part of the sentence.
Appeal disposed off.
-
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 1276
Seeking permission to Official Liquidator to disburse an amount of Rs.64,63,964/- to IDBI Bank under Section 529 of the Companies Act - HELD THAT:- Having perused the OLR and considering the fact that the amount has been worked out by the Chartered Accountants, the application is allowed in terms of prayers 15A and 15B.
-
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 1274
Maintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Corporate Debtor was classified as NPA on 30th September, 2013 and application filed on 10th June, 2019 - whether application was barred by limitation or not - HELD THAT:- Issue notice upon Respondent. Notice on behalf of Respondent No.2 is waived and accepted by Mr. Aditya Dewan, Advocate. No further notice need be issued to him.
Let notice be issued upon Respondent No.1. Appellant to provide mobile Nos./ e-mail address of the Respondent No.1. Notice be issued through e-mail or any other available mode. Requisites along with process fee be filed within three days.
-
2021 (1) TMI 1273
Seeking extension of interim bail - bail sought on medical grounds - offences under Sections 20/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - HELD THAT:- As per status report dated 28.01.2021, necessary verification was done from the Head of the Department of Deen Dayal Hospital, New Delhi. Discharge summary sheet dated 25.01.2021 placed on record notes that petitioner was admitted on 13.01.2021 for anti coagulation therapy and optimization and after treatment was discharged on 25.01.2021 in stable condition. In the aforesaid discharge summary sheet, Dr. P.S.Sarang, Specialist and HOD (Surgery) has specifically stated that this treatment is also available in Tihar Jail - In view of aforesaid, the petitioner can continue his treatment within jail premises, if so required and extension of his interim bail on medical grounds is unwarranted.
What is pertinent to mention here is the conduct of petitioner. Despite being on interim bail since 12.06.2021, petitioner moved bail application [Bail. Appln. 3806/2020] before a Coordinate Bench of this Court seeking regular/ interim bail - this Court is informed that another petition of petitioner [Bail Appln.299/2021] seeking regular bail in the same FIR case, has been filed and it is also listed before this Court today.
Application dismissed.
-
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 1271
Partial rejection of claim of applicant - seeking to follow procedures established by law and principles including principles of fairness, impartiality and transparency in the conduct of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) - seeking to restraint RP from creating any third-party interest - HELD THAT:- The RP has rightfully partially accepted the applicant’s claim after due consideration of the documents provided to the IRP/RP. It is further observed that the RP has acted in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the applicable rules and regulations made thereunder and also followed the principles of law including the principles of fairness, impartiality and transparency.
It is clear from the facts of the case that out of total settlement amount of Rs.12,00,00,000/- agreed between the parties as provided in the Consent Terms, the applicant had received substantial amount of Rs.10,00,00,000/- towards principal outstanding at the time of signing the Consent Terms and Rs.1,00,00,000/- less applicable TDS towards interest and thus the balance outstanding was Rs.1,00,00,000/- only. Therefore, this application needs to be dismissed and there is no wrong committed by the RP in deciding upon the claim of the applicant.
Application dismissed.
........
|
9911796707
