|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1657 Records
-
2024 (10) TMI 1617
Addition of commission income @ 1.00 % of total transaction / credit in the bank account of assessee - assessee vehemently argued that in case of assessee’s group concerned, the Revenue has assessed commission income @ nine paisa or ten paisa per rupees hundred. However, in case of assessee, the Revenue has followed similar income assessed @ 1.00 % per hundred rupees - HELD THAT:- Assessee relied on the decision of Sanjay R Shah [2016 (11) TMI 1233 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] and Rohit P Panwala [2011 (5) TMI 1146 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] wherein similar income was assessed @ ten paisa or twelve paisa per rupees hundred. Thus, if the commission income is considered @.50 paisa per rupees hundred is sufficient and reasonable as no straight jacket formula can be applied of such income. Thus, ground No.1 is partly allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1616
Appeals pending before the appellate authority as on 26.09.2024 - issue of allotment of the appeals to each Commissioner of Appeals on average basis - HELD THAT:- As remedial measures suggested by Central Board of Direct Taxes for reduction of the backlog of the pending appeals, it is stated that the CBDT has issued the guidelines for the priority/out of turn disposal on 19.03.2024 and 100 JCIT (Appeals) are appointed in the year 2023 and as per Section 345MA of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, e-Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2022 is notified and under Finance Act, 2024, new measures have been introduced and Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 is also introduced by Finance Act, 2024 and Commissioner (Appeals) have been empowered to set aside the ex-parte assessment orders.
Except the above remedial measure, no other measures are stated in the affidavit with regard to as to how the pending appeals with the CIT (Appeals) which is around 1400 cases per Faceless CIT (Appeals) shall be heard and within what time span such appeals shall be disposed of by the concerned CIT (Appeals). No measures are mentioned with regard to bunching of similar appeals or repeated issues for different succeeding years in appeals, covered matters etc. which would speedily dispose of such appeals by CIT (Appeals).
In the facts of the case by order dated 26.03.2020, the petitioner is already protected by restraining the respondent from taking any coercive action.
Let there be a fresh additional affidavit-in-reply be filed by respondent Nos.3 to 5 before the next date of hearing as placing on record the data with regard to the average life of the appeal as well as the remedial measures to dispose of the appeals pending before the CIT (Appeals) and time bound programme for disposal of backlog of 5,80,188 pending appeals as on 26.09.2024.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1615
Addition arising out of search proceedings - disallowance of wages payable & salaries payable - addition is based on notings found in Measurement books (M Books) for labor payments and excel sheets - HELD THAT:- As identical issue has been decided by us in assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18 [2024 (9) TMI 1654 - ITAT CHENNAI] wherein held as seen that the assessee has reversed provision of wages payable and salaries payabe and claimed the same on actual payment basis in FY 2016-17. The same is very much clear from the above reconciliation. Since the provision as wrongly claimed in return of income filed u/s 139(1) has now been reversed in return of income filed u/s 153A, the payment made in subsequent year would be allowable as deduction in the subsequent year. If the same is not allowed, the assessee would suffer double disallowance which is wholly unjustified Therefore, considering the fact of the case, the amount would be allowed as deduction.
For balance provision of Rs. 14.69 Lacs has been made on 31-03- 2017. The aggregate provision as on 31-03-2017 was Rs. 29.53 Lacs which has fully been paid by the assessee through banking channels in the month of April and May, 2017 which is evident from ledger of salaries payable.
Unexplained investment u/s 69 - Onus to prove - addition stem from excel sheet titled as ‘15%’ and “12%’ found during search - HELD THAT:- Upon perusal of loose excel sheet as extracted in the assessment order, it could be seen that these sheets lacks sufficient details to form an opinion of actual cash introduction by the partners of the firm. The same merely contain certain computation of interest only without suggesting anything more. The complete details of the transactions could not be deciphered from the same. The same do not have any details as to source of alleged capital introduction by the partners. Under these circumstances, not much credence could be given to this document to make impugned additions in the hands of the assessee in the absence of corroboration of entries as contained therein.
As decided in the case of Kranti Impex Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (3) TMI 424 - ITAT MUMBAI] when the seized papers were undated having no acceptable narration and did not bear the signature of any party, they are in the nature of dumb documents having no evidentiary value and could not be taken to be the sole basis for determination of undisclosed income of the assessee. The onus would be on revenue to collect cogent evidences to corroborate the nothings therein. The ratio of other decisions as cited by the assessee during first appeal also supports the case of the assessee.
Thus, impugned additions as made by Ld. AO, merely on the basis of loose sheets without corroboration thereof, was not adequate enough to draw adverse inference of cash flows against the assessee. Therefore, we delete the same and allow the corresponding grounds as raised by the assessee. AO is directed to recompute the income of the assessee in terms of our adjudication.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1614
Unexplained investment u/s.69 - cash deposits made in Specified Bank Notes(SBNs) during demonetization period - whether the demonetized currency received by assessee on account of sale of IMFS and beer to the customers and accepted demonetized currency in return is to be assessed u/s.69 of the Act or not as unexplained investment?
HELD THAT:- The Government of India and RBI has issued various notifications and SOP to deal with specified bank notes. Further, the RBI allowed certain category of persons to accept and to deal with specified bank notes up to 31.12.2016. Further, the specified bank notes (cessation of liability) Act, 2017, also stated that from the appointed date no person can receive or accept and transact specified bank notes, and appointed date has been stated as 31.12.2016. Therefore, there is no clarity on how to deal with demonetized currency from the date of demonetization and up to 31.12.2016. Therefore, under those circumstances, some persons continued to accept and transact the specified bank notes and deposited into bank accounts. Therefore, merely for the reason that there is a violation of certain notifications/GO issued by the Government in transacting with specified bank notes, the genuine explanation offered by the assessee towards source for cash deposit cannot be rejected, unless the AO makes out a case that the assessee has deposited unaccounted cash into bank account in specified bank notes.
Further noted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes had issued a circular for the guidance of the Revenue Officer to verify cash deposits during demonetization period in various categories of explanation offered by the assessee and as per the circular of the CBDT, examination of business cases, very important points needs to be considered is analysis of bank accounts, analysis of cash receipts and analysis of stock registers.
From the circular issued by the CBDT, it is very clear that, in a case where cash deposit found in business cases, the AO needs to verify the explanation offered by the assessee with regard to realization of debtors where said debtors were outstanding in the previous year or credited during the year etc.
Therefore, from the circular issued by the CBDT, it is very clear that, while making additions towards cash deposits in demonetized currency, the AO needs to analyze the business model of the assessee, its books of account and analysis of sales etc. In this case, if we go by analysis furnished by the assessee in respect of total sales, cash sales including the cash received in demonetized currency and cash deposits, there is negligible amount in demonetized currency.
When there is no significant change in cash deposits during demonetization period, then merely for the reason that the assessee has accepted specified bank notes in violation of circular/notification issued by Government of India and RBI, the source explained for cash deposits cannot be rejected.
For violation of any RBI notification, etc., can have any civil or criminal liability and can be dealt with under any other provision of law by the concerned authority but for the purpose of bringing the amount under Income-tax, the provisions are very clear i.e., 69 & 69A of the Act.
In our considered view, to bring any amount u/s. 69 or 69A of the Act, the nature and source of investment, needs to be examined. In case the assessee explains the nature and source of investment, then the question of making addition towards unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act does not arise. In this case, the source of deposits has not been disputed and has been created out of ordinary business sales which has been credited into books of accounts and profits has also been duly included in the return of income filed in relevant assessment year. Therefore, additions cannot be made u/s. 69 of the Act and taxed u/s. 115BBE of the Act towards cash deposits made to bank account of demonetized cash in SBNs.
Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1613
Grant of Regular Bail - evasion of GST - offences punishable under Sections 132 (1) (d), etc. of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The allegations against the applicant are that he caused a loss of Rs. 8.90 crore, an amount collected as GST from various firms, which he did not deposit with the Government. The procedure for the recovery of such tax is governed by the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Chapter XV. Section 76 specifies that if tax is collected but not paid to the Government, then the Act itself prescribes the procedure and mode for initiating recovery proceedings. The applicant has already deposited 60 Lakh Rupees before the authority. The applicant has expressed his willingness to deposit 10% of the alleged amount. In this regard, an undertaking has been filed on his behalf stating that the applicant is ready to deposit Rs. 90,00,000/- (Ninety Lakh Rupees) within a period of seven days.
This Court has also taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SANJAY CHANDRA VERSUS CBI [2011 (11) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT] as well as in the case of GUDIKANTI NARASIMHULU AND ORS. VERSUS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [1977 (12) TMI 143 - SUPREME COURT]. Obviously, the conclusion of trial will take time and keeping the accused behind the bars is nothing but amounts to pre-trial conviction and therefore, considering the celebrated principle of bail jurisprudence is that “bail is a rule and jail is exception” as well as the concept of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, present application deserves consideration.
Considering the nature of the allegations made against the applicant/s in the FIR, without discussing the evidence in detail, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion and enlarge the applicant/s on regular bail. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant/s is/are ordered to be released on regular bail on fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1612
Direction for release of goods - opportunity of hearing provided or not - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It appears that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.01.2023 before the respondent No. 3-Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Appeals-8 (Surat) and the same is pending - During the pendency of the petition, it appears that the respondent No. 3 has granted the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner from time to time.
From the case proceedings placed on record by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, it appears that the petitioner did not remain present on 23rd October, 2024 and therefore, the respondent No. 3 has granted another opportunity of hearing by letter dated 24.10.2024 to the petitioner to remain present for further hearing as the learned advocate for the petitioner who appeared before the respondent No. 3 on 26.09.2024 prayed for further hearing through video conference.
The petitioner is disposed of so as to enable the respondent No. 3 to pass the appropriate order in accordance with law in the Appeal filed by the petitioner.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1611
Validity of SCN u/s 74 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 - evasion and concealment of tax - parallel proceedings conducted by the DGGI and the Haryana State GST Intelligence Unit as well as Assistant Commissioner, CGST - HELD THAT:- It is found that the contentions raised by the petitioner are wholly misconceived. Issuance of notice under section 73 of the Act and dropping the same would not prevent the authorities from independently initiating proceedings under section 74 of the Act. The said proposition has also been accepted by the Allahabad High Court in HCL INFOTECH LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX AND ANOTHER [2024 (9) TMI 1644 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT].
So far as the question raised by the petitioner with regard to parallel proceedings being conducted by the DGGI and the Haryana State GST Intelligence Unit as well as Assistant Commissioner, CGST is concerned, it is found that while the Assistant Commissioner, CGST issued a letter dated 10.03.2023 to the petitioner requesting him to deposit the tax liability, the office of the DGGI only issued notice seeking certain queries. However, none of the authorities, either of the CGST or the DGGI have proceeded or initiated proceedings under section 74 of the Act.
it is apparent that the allegations against the petitioner are that while he is stated of having availed excess to the tune of Rs. 8,84,57,976/- under head IGST; Rs. 23,44,08,735/- in CGST and Rs. 23,43,95,663/- under SGST, however, same is not appearing in GSTR-2A which reflects that the taxpayer has not deposited the tax liability in the Government treasury and has availed the same wrongfully. Resultantly, the notice has been issued to the petitioner.
The proceedings under section 74 of the Act are comprehensively and completely laid down under the provisions of the Act, and this Court would not in any manner cause hindrance in the disposal of the proceedings.
The writ petition cannot be entertained for the said purposes, more so when prima facie the show cause notice specifically reflects the allegations which the tax authorities feel to reflect of a fraud having been committed by the petitioner. The case and facts of HCL Infotech Ltd. are found to be different from the present case and it cannot be said that the notice does not reflect the allegations.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1610
Violation of principles of natural justice - assessment order passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing - prayer to remand the matter back to the first respondent on condition that the petitioner shall pay 10% of the disputed tax amount - HELD THAT:- As far as this case is concerned, without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the first respondent has passed the impugned assessment order. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned assessment order passed by the first respondent is liable to be quashed and it is just to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to put forth his case.
The Assessment Order bearing Ref.No.ZD330424197172H dated 25.04.2024 passed by the first respondent and the Communication dated 25.09.2024 addressed to the second respondent by the first respondent are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to the first respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After making such payment, the petitioner shall produce the payment proof before the first respondent - Petiiton disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1609
Challenge to impugned orders, recovery notices and bank attachment notice - mismatch of GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A - HELD THAT:- According to the petitioner, there was an error crept while filing the Form GSTR-3B. In this regard, a certificate was also obtained by the petitioner and the same was perused and accepted by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.
In such case, this Court is of the view that as contended by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case before the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned assessment orders.
The four assessment orders dated 19.12.2023 came to be passed by the respondent pertaining to the Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 are set aside and the matters are remanded to the 1st respondent/The State Tax Officer for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 10% of disputed tax amount to the respondent, in each assessment order, within a period of four weeks from today (19.10.2024) and the setting aside of the impugned orders will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1608
Mandate of pre-deposit - Challenge to impugned Letter, directing payment through Electronic Cash Ledger, insofar as it has been issued arbitrarily and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution - compliance with Section 107(6)(b) of the CGST Act using the Electronic Credit Ledger - HELD THAT:- Considering the facts of the present case, the amount paid by the petitioner as pre-deposit in compliance of section 107 (6) (b) of the CGST Act utilizing the amount of Electronic Credit Ledger is required to be considered valid and impugned letter dated 25.04.2023 issued by the respondent No. 2 directing the petitioner to pay pre-deposit amount through Electronic Cash Ledger is therefore, hereby quashed and set aside.
Therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner is required to be heard on merits by considering the payment of pre-deposit by the petitioner from Electronic Credit Ledger as a sufficient compliance of the provisions of section 107 (6) (b) of the CGST Act.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1607
Violation of principles of natural justice - neither the SCN nor the impugned order of assessment has been served by tendering to the petitioner or by registered post, instead it was uploaded in the common portal - mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B - HELD THAT:- The impugned order is set aside and the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On complying with the above condition, the impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material. If any such objections are filed, the same shall be considered by the respondent and orders shall be passed in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1606
Violation of principles of natural justice - non-applicatjon of mind - petitioner not heard before passing such orders - availment of excess ITC - HELD THAT:- Unfortunately, the petitioner could not file reply immediately to such notice, owing to the fact that the petitioner's Authorized Person, who is taking care of the statutory compliance was not well. However, the excess ITC availed by the petitioner was already rectified/reversed by the petitioner during the monthly returns filed in the subsequent months and to the extent GSTR-3B was also filed, however, the respondent, without considering the said aspect, as if, the petitioner has availed ITC in entirety, passed the impugned orders towards tax liability as well as equivalent amount towards penalty/interest. Though the petitioner filed Applications dated 04.05.2024 and 12.07.2024 setting out such details along with relevant documents and sought for rectification, the respondent, without any application of mind, rejected the Applications by virtue of the impugned orders dated 10.05.2024 and 27.08.2024 respectively.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders are nothing but an outcome of total non application of mind and also suffer from violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner has not been heard before passing such orders. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the same.
The impugned orders dated 23.04.2024 as well as the Rejection Orders dated 10.05.2024 and 27.08.2024 respectively are set aside - the matters are remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1605
Violation of principles of natural justice - valuable right of the petitioner to defend through reply as well as right of personal hearing was taken away - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel for the respondents could not explain the finding given in the portal. The said recording in the portal i.e., ‘Reply furnished, pending for order by tax officer’ makes it clear that the petitioner’s reply to show-cause notice was received by the respondents. Thus, finding given by the Authority in the impugned order that the petitioner failed to submit his reply is factually incorrect and cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. If the reply of the petitioner is not considered, the principles of natural justice were grossly violated. For this singular reason alone, the impugned order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny and the same is liable to be set aside.
The Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 and the Authority is directed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner to the show-cause notice dated 27.12.2023 and proceed further in accordance with law from that stage.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1604
Denial of refund of input tax credit debited by the petitioner as a pre-deposit - non-inclusion of the freight and pumping charges collected by the petitioner from its customers into taxable value of the Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) manufactured and supplied by the petitioner to its customers - HELD THAT:- The amount of pre-deposit debited by the petitioner in the returns filed by the petitioner for the respective months for the Assessment Years 2015- 2016 from its input tax credit claimed under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax regime is now sought to be denied vide Impugned Intimations all dated 25.11.2021 invoking the Circular No.05/2015/MM3/15440/2013 dated 06.02.2015. The Court is of the view that refund of the aforesaid amounts cannot be denied, since the substantial questions of law now has been answered in favour of the petitioner in terms of the order passed in Tax Case (Revision) Nos.10 and 11 of 2013 dated 13.12.2018.
Further, having accepted the pre-deposit of input tax credit through a debit in the VAT Returns and having considered the Revision Orders passed on 14.09.2021, it is not open for the Commercial Tax Department now to turn around and deny the refund stating that the petitioner had not complied with the Order dated 25.03.2015 passed by this Court.
As per Section 142(6)(a) and (b) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TNGST) Act, 2017, the amounts paid as pre-deposit has to be refunded back - the Impugned Intimations all dated 25.11.2021 invoking the Circular No.05/2015/MM3/15440/2013, dated 06.02.2015 at this belated point of time seeking to deny refund are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed with consequential reliefs.
The respondents are therefore directed to refund the amount to the petitioner within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1603
Direction to open the online portal in order to rectify the clerical mistake committed in wrongly filing the detail under Column B2C without mentioning GST number of the recipient instead of Column B2B in the GSTR-1 - petitioner submits that the representation dated 20.09.2021 of the petitioner deserves to be considered and disposed by the respondents - HELD THAT:- The grievance of the petitioner is justified. The petitioner is therefore directed to resubmit the representation strictly in accordance with the Circular No.183/15/2022-GST (F.No.CBIC-20001/2/2022- GST) dated 27.12.2022.
The respondents are directed to consider the revised representation and pass appropriate orders on merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the revised representation strictly in accordance with Circular No.183/15/2022-GST (F. No. CBIC - 20001/2/2022-GST) dated 27.12.2022.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1602
Violation of principles of natural justice - non-speaking order - objections of the petitioner not dealt - Input mismatch of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on comparison between GSTR-3B & GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B & GSTR-5 - Discrepancy between GSTR-1 and E-Way bill outward supplies - HELD THAT:- The objections of the petitioner have not been dealt with by the respondent while passing the impugned order, the impugned order suffers from the vice of being a non-speaking order and thus, the same is liable to be set aside, more so, when there was a specific direction of this Court in the earlier round of litigation to pass a speaking order.
The impugned order passed by the respondent dated 21.05.2024 is set aside. The respondent/authority shall consider the objections filed by the petitioner and pass speaking order in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1601
Unblocking of ITC - Revocation of suspension of registration - HELD THAT:- This Court is hereby disposing of the writ petition with the liberty granted as sought for, to the writ petitioner, to bring to the notice of the concerned authority by making representation that the Input Tax Credit which has been blocked in consequence of suspension of registration be dealt with by passing an appropriate order - If such representation will be filed, the authority concerned will take decision in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1600
Condonation of delay in filing the revocation application - compliance with all the requirements of paying the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due - HELD THAT:- The delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1599
Condonation of delay in filing the revocation application - compliance with all the requirements of paying the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due - HELD THAT:- The delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1598
Condonation of delay in filing the revocation application - compliance with all the requirements of paying the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due - HELD THAT:- The delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
........
|
9911796707
