|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 1125 Records
-
2020 (11) TMI 845
Rejection of Declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - direction to the respondents to consider afresh such application (declaration) as per the scheme - alleged non-payment of service tax dues pertain to the period from April, 2013 to June, 2017 - HELD THAT:- From a conjoint reading of sub sections (1), (2) and (3) of section 127, the picture that emerges is that if the amount estimated by the Designated Committee is equal to the amount declared by the declarant, then the Designated Committee shall issue a statement in electronic form indicating the amount payable by the declarant. However, if the amount estimated by the Designated Committee is higher than the amount declared by the declarant, the Designated Committee shall give an opportunity of hearing to the declarant - Once the determined amount is paid, discharge certificate is issued by the Designated Committee under sub section (8) of section 127.
The proprietor of the petitioner in his statement recorded on 11.01.2018 by the investigating authority admitted the service tax liability of ₹ 60 lakhs (approximately) to be outstanding for the period from 2015-2016 to June, 2017. This was corroborated by the departmental authority in the letter dated 24.01.2018 which we have already noted and discussed. Therefore, present is a case where there is acknowledgment by the petitioner of the duty liability as well as by the department in its communication to the petitioner. Thus, it can be said that in the case of the petitioner the amount of duty involved had been quantified on or before 30.06.2019. In such circumstances, rejection of the application (declaration) of the petitioner on the ground of being ineligible with the remark that investigation was still going on and the duty amount was pending for quantification would not be justified.
In a case where the amount estimated by the Designated Committee exceeds the amount declared by the declarant, then a hearing is given by the Designated Committee to the declarant before determining the amount to be paid by the declarant. In a situation where Designated Committee grants hearing to a declarant when the amount estimated by it exceeds the amount declared by the declarant, then it would be wholly inconceivable that before an application (declaration) is rejected on the ground of ineligibility, no hearing is granted to the declarant.
Matter remanded back to the Designated Committee to consider afresh the application (declaration) of the petitioner dated 12.12.2019 as a valid declaration and grant the consequential relief after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who shall be informed about the date, time and place of the hearing. Such decision shall be in the form of a speaking order with due intimation to the petitioner - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (11) TMI 844
Recovery of arrears of duty - Section 121(c) of Finance Act - Validity of circular dated 25.09.2019 - HELD THAT:- The words “amount payable” has been defined in Section 121 (e) of the Act. It means the amount calculated by the authority as the amount of tax dues less the tax relief. Thus, the amount of tax dues being the amount in arrears in terms of provisions of Section 124(1) (c) read with Section 121(c) of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 is the amount of duty which is in arrears as per order in original dated 29.03.2019 i.e. ₹ 1,74,66,374/which has been reflected in the SVLDRS3, by the designated authority who computed the amount of tax relief under Section 124(1)(c) at ₹ 69,86,549.60/. Thus the balance amount as estimated amount payable has been determined at ₹ 1,04,79,824.40.
Thus, neither the circular appears to be in breach of the provisions of Section 124(1)(c) or subsection (2) of Section 124 nor the amount estimated as per SVLDRS3 dated 01.02.2020 suffers from any error.
As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, put up this case in the additional cause list on 25.11.2020 at 02.00 p.m.
-
2020 (11) TMI 843
CENVAT Credit - input service - Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation to the banks for insuring the deposits of the public - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, BANK OF BARODA (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DENA BANK) , BANK OF BARODA, UNION BANK OF INDIA, STATE BANK OF INDIA VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CGST & CX, PUNE-II, COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-I AND IV, MUMBAI, COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2020 (10) TMI 300 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where it was held that All the appeals are remanded back to the CESTAT for fresh decision in conformity with the decision rendered by the larger bench.
Appeal is remanded back to the CESTAT for fresh decision in conformity with the decision rendered by the Larger Bench - appeal allowed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 842
Validity of delayed adjudication of SCN - Inordinate delay of 13 years in adjudication of SCN - whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, such delayed adjudication of the show-cause notices would be just, proper and legal? - HELD THAT:- This Court held that a show-cause notice issued a decade back should not be allowed to be adjudicated upon by the revenue merely because there is no period of limitation prescribed in the statute to complete such proceedings. Larger public interest requires that revenue should adjudicate the show-cause notice expeditiously and within a reasonable period. What would be the reasonable period would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but certainly a period of 13 years cannot be termed as a reasonable period. Secondly, regarding keeping the show-cause notice in the dormant list or the call book, this Court held that such a plea cannot be allowed or condoned by the writ court to justify inordinate delay at the hands of the revenue. To accept such a contention would defeat the rule of law itself. Taking cognizance of such an aspect would amount to giving credence to extraneous matters. In any case such a procedure internally adopted by the respondents is not binding on the Court.
In the present case, it is evident that the delay in adjudication of the show-cause notices could not be attributed to the petitioner. The delay occurred at the hands of the respondents. For the reasons mentioned, respondents have kept the show-cause notices in the call book but without informing the petitioner. Upon thorough consideration of the matter, we are of the view that such delayed adjudication after more than a decade, defeats the very purpose of issuing show-cause notice. When a show-cause notice is issued to a party, it is expected that the same would be taken to its logical consequence within a reasonable period so that a finality is reached. A period of 13 years as in the present case certainly cannot be construed to be a reasonable period.
Petitioner cannot be faulted for taking the view that respondents had decided not to proceed with the show-cause notices. An assessee or a dealer or a taxable person must know where it stands after issuance of show-cause notice and submission of reply. If for more than 10 years thereafter there is no response from the departmental authorities, it cannot be faulted for taking the view that its reply had been accepted and the authorities have given a quietus to the matter.
Also, respondents had not taken any action pursuant to the show-cause notices for long 13 years till issuance of notice for personal hearing on 13.08.2019. After the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 06.09.2019 with due intimation to the respondents, respondent No.3 went ahead and passed the order-inoriginal dated 11.11.2019. We fail to understand when the respondents could wait for 13 long years after issuance of the show-cause notices, there could not have been any earthly reason to proceed at such great speed and pass the order-in-original before the Court could adjudicate on the correctness of the action of the respondents.
There are no hesitation to hold that respondents were not justified in commencing adjudication proceeding 13 years after issuance of the show-cause notices dated 01.06.2006 and 28.11.2006. Such adjudication proceeding is therefore, held to be invalid - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2020 (11) TMI 841
Refund of Excess Service tax paid - rejection on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- Identical issue came up for consideration before the Gwalior Bench of this Court in THE COMMISSIONER, CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LIMITED [2019 (8) TMI 1592 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT], wherein, while relying on the decision in COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-II VERSUS ALLIED PHOTOGRAPHICS INDIA LTD. [2004 (3) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT] and M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR [2019 (5) TMI 657 - SUPREME COURT] it was held that the Tribunal has grossly erred in law in holding that the claim for refund rejected for the reason being time barred, should be treated as within time and the "claims are to be processed", which deserves to be and is hereby set aside. Even shifting the burden on the department to find out as to whether the assessee has not passed the burden of tax on the final consumer cannot be countenanced in the given facts of present case.
Impugned order set aside - refund is to be allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (11) TMI 840
Refund of amount paid as supervision charges - Interest for the amount paid as supervision charges - Board’s circular dated 23.04.2003 - HELD THAT:- It was observed by the board that even though the circular dated 01.01.2002 does not envisage any physical supervision of such storage premises /godown by the Central Excise, the field formations are still collecting merchant overtime charges / charges on cost recovery basis as per earlier concept of physical supervision of godowns / storage places in terms of Board’s Circular dated 14.04.1986. Therefore, the board’s circular dated 01.01.2002 and the earlier instructions of the State have stood modified to the said extent.
Thus, the over-time supervision charges could not have been charged by the respondents. Therefore, the appellant was entitled for refund of the over-time supervision charges. The board’s circular dated 24.04.2003 was required to be applied and the refund was to be granted to the appellant.
Interest for the amount paid as supervision charges - HELD THAT:- Since the supervision charges were not to be charged by law, the appellant would be entitled for payment of interest on refund of the said amount. However, the earlier payment of the supervision charges has been made by a mistaken notion of law - the department cannot be held completely responsible for collection of these amounts. Therefore, in order to balance equities, a notional interest is liable to be imposed - interest @ 3% per annum will be paid from the date of deposit made by the appellant till the date of payment to be made to the appellant by the respondents.
The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and against the department by holding that the appellant is entitled for refund of the amount paid by him towards supervision charges - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (11) TMI 839
Amnesty Scheme - auction - recovery of arrears of tax - It is the petitioner's contention that this forfeited amount must go to reduce the liability of the petitioner, for the realization of which the Government had resorted to the auction procedure under Revenue Recovery Act - HELD THAT:- The auction steps initiated by the respondents have to be seen as for the purposes of realization of tax dues from the petitioner. It would follow, therefore, that any amount realized by the Government through the auction procedure that was resorted to for the purposes of realization of the dues from the petitioner, must go to reduce the liability of the petitioner to the Government. Although, it is a fact that the auction sale did not materialize, the forfeited amount must be seen as a portion of the sale consideration that the auction purchaser had paid, but which stood forfeited to the Government on account of the default committed by him in making the payment of the balance consideration. The said amounts forfeited to the Government should go to reduce the liability of the petitioner to the State Government.
The Ext.P5 amnesty application preferred by the petitioner should be considered as a valid one for the purposes of the amnesty scheme, and the respondent should now act on the same and compute the balance amount payable by the petitioner in accordance with the amnesty scheme - Petition allowed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 838
Smuggling - Drug Trafficking - petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated - It is submitted that presumption of innocence lies in favour of the petitioner till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt - HELD THAT:- The petitioner Nagary Ally Kombo had directed Chinedu to handover the bag containing contraband to co-accused Kelvin. During investigation of the case, Mobile phones of the petitioner as well as other accused persons were examined and it was revealed that they were in touch and which prima facie shows that they are member of a drug syndicate and involved in the drug trafficking. The accusation in the present case is with regard to commercial quantity. As per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, if a person is accused of enumerated offences under the said provision and in case, the Court proposes to grant bail to such a person, two conditions are to be mandatorily satisfied in addition to the normal requirements under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. or any other enactment. Firstly the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of such offence. Secondly that person is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
The facts appearing on record prima facie reveal that petitioner is involved in drug trafficking and this Court is of the opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of offence charged. Huge quantity of Pseudoephedrine weighing 24.5 kg, has been recovered. Moreover, since the charge-sheet prima facie reveals that petitioner is member of a drug syndicate, it cannot be said that he will not commit any offence if released on bail.
Thus, appearing on record and nature of offence, no grounds for grant of bail to the petitioner are made out - bail application dismissed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 837
Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - time limit for presuming service of notice - HELD THAT:- Presumption of service of notice within a reasonable time is to be raised. It should be deemed to have been served at best within a period of thirty days from the date of issuance thereof. Meaning thereby, the reasonable period for presumption of service may be up to 30 days from date of its issuance. Hence, in present case, notice issued was said to be served and it was issued on 18.12.2017. It was sent through speed post and it was deemed to be sufficiently served up to 17.1.2018 and within fifteen days payment was not made. Then after within thirty days this complaint was filed. Hence, apparently this complaint was not time barred.
On the basis of statement recorded under Section 200 and documentary evidence given under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act was, prima facie, made out. But learned trial Court has failed to appreciate facts and law, has presumed service of notice within 20.12.2017 and has dismissed complaint. This order is apparently erroneous on the face of it and is under mis-exercise of jurisdiction of learned trial Court. Accordingly, this revision merits its allowance.
Revision allowed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 836
Dishonor of Cheque - petitioner submitted that, after the institution of the complaint the complainant has paid the entire cheque amount and has collected back the cheque in question, as such, the private complaint filed by him, does not survive - maintainability of complaint - HELD THAT:- When the complaint lodged by the respondent herein is verified, the respondent as a complainant, has narrated the very same alleged facts in his complaint and contended that the accused only with an intention to harass him and for putting him to some difficulty, had secured a withdrawal slip which was unconnected with his Bank account and by forging his signature had filled the cheque for a huge amount by themselves and presented it for its realisation.
If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance in the absence of production of the said cheque by the complainant is verified, the only answer that comes is, in the absence of any material to show that the complainant had paid the cheque amount to the accused and collected the said cheque back, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it cannot be expected that the complainant was required to produce the alleged cheque along with his complaint in the Court below - the continued argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the non-initiating of any criminal case against the present complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act, itself would prove that the cheque was returned to the complainant, also is not acceptable, for the reason that, in the light of Annexures-A & B and the contents of the complaint at this stage and prima facie, it can be inferred that the accused after giving the reply as per Annexure-B realised that the complainant has given a suitable reply to that notice and he may initiate a legal action against them have now come up with the said defence that the cheque amount of ₹ 25,00,000/- has been paid to them in cash and the cheque has been collected back by the present complainant (respondent).
Maintainability of complaint - HELD THAT:- The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, when the Banker has stated that the said cheque was not issued to the complainant, the present complainant/ respondent cannot initiate the present complaint, as such, the present complaint is not maintainable, is also not acceptable, for the simple reason that, when the accused through their legal notice at Annexure-A have alleged that the complainant had issued a cheque for a sum of ₹ 25,00,000/- to them and the same got dishonoured, then the complainant who has taken a defence that the cheque has got nothing to do with him and his signature in the alleged cheque has been forged, gets every right to prosecute the alleged payee in the cheque, in accordance with law - the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint is not maintainable is also not acceptable.
There are no reason to hold that there is any possibility of the abuse of process of law or any grave injustice being caused to the present petitioner - petition dismissed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 835
Dishonor of Cheque - Vicarious liability of Director - dishonor of collateral security cheques which were issued in discharge of alleged outstanding of a term loan sanctioned by the bank - fundamental argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for dishonor of cheques, as the liability was that of Company and not of the petitioner as an individual - HELD THAT:- There is merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Given the facts of case read with allegations in the impugned Bombay High Court complaint, as an individual Director, petitioner seems to have been wrongly fastened with criminal liability of accused company M/s Supreme Tex Mart Ltd., particularly, after appointment of the Interim Resolution Professional and suspension of the directors under the IBC.
It is though not stated in the impugned complaint but on a query of this court, it transpires that petitioner had signed the cheques in question on behalf of the accused company. However, following the appointment of IRP, the petitioner was forthwith suspended to act as Director of the accused company and he was/is thus not in a position to pay or settle on behalf of the company. The primary liability of cheque bouncing in this case is of the accused drawer Company. All accounts are currently since under the control of a Interim Resolution Professional, it would not be fair to impose liability on a suspended Director of the Company.
Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code-2016,once an insolvency petition is “admitted”, the resolution process gets initiated. The existing management automatically gets suspended. The Interim Resolution Professional takes over the operations of the company. Under Section 25 of IBC the Resolution Professional is under mandate to protect and preserve the assets of the ‘corporate debtor company’. Subsequent thereto, the committee of creditor is required to submit a resolution plan for approval of the ‘committee of creditors’. After such approval, the resolution plan is presented to the Adjudicating Authority - In the premise, due to insolvency proceedings against the accused company and imposition of moratorium, two consequences arise, namely, (a) option to compound a cheque bounce is not available to its directors (erstwhile) and; (b) claims of the creditors have to be submitted before a committee of creditors. The primary liability in a cheque bounce case where cheque has been issued on behalf of the company is upon the drawer-Company. Though the accounts of the drawer company herein are under the control of a Resolution Professional but sword of liability qua cheque issued on behalf of company has been vicariously imposed on the suspended director/petitioner.
The impugned complaint and summoning order are set aside only qua the petitioner/director - the complaint proceedings shall continue further against the Company/accused No.1, in accordance with law - Application disposed off.
-
2020 (11) TMI 834
Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - goods were not accompanied by the relevant E-way bills - Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the appellate order shows that the Appellate Authority has decided the appeal in the absence of the counsel for the appellant. There is no reasons not to believe the version of the counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the counsel for the appellant could not appear on account of his suffering from high fever and no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending.
The matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the appellant - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (11) TMI 833
Grant of Bail - allegation of fraudulent availment of input tax credit - passing of forged GST - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the nature of allegations against the petitioner, his length of custody, the pendency of investigation, the offence being compoundable and the severity of punishment under Section 132 of the CGST Act; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
The bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Subhash Chandra Tyagi S/o Late Shri Chiranji Lal shall be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with afore-mentioned FIR registered at concerned Police Station, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 1, 00, 000/- together with two sureties in the sum of ₹ 50, 000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall comply with all the conditions laid down under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
-
2020 (11) TMI 832
Provisional attachment of petitioner's Bank Account - Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Respondent No.1 states that if directions are issued by the Court for time-bound disposal of the above representation, it will be abided by promptly.
It is directed that the aforementioned representation of the Petitioner be decided by a reasoned order not later than 4th December, 2020 and the decision thereon be communicated to the Petitioner not later than 8th December, 2020. The submissions of the Petitioner in the present petition and any additional submissions the Petitioner wishes to make in writing within the next two days, shall also be taken into account while passing such order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (11) TMI 831
Release of detained goods alongwith vehicle - expired E-way bill - HELD THAT:- It is clear from Rule 138(10) that the specific period for which an e-way bill is valid is evident from the table under that rule. Serial Nos.1 and 2 deals with cargo other than Over Dimensional Cargo [hereinafter 'ODC'] and serial Nos.3 and 4 with ODC. ODC is cargo having dimensions in excess of the vehicle in which it is carried. The contention of the appellant is that the amendment by which an insertion was made in 2019 takes in multimodal shipment in which at least one leg involves transport by ship and whether it be an ODC or goods other than ODC.
Enabling proviso under Rule 138(10) - HELD THAT:- We perfectly agree with the submission of the learned Senior Government Pleader that this would only enable the consignee to update the e-way bill extending the period provided under the Table; within eight hours from the time of its expiry - If the shipment could be cleared only just before or after the period of expiry of the e-way bill, then there could be an extension made by an updation and the transport commenced with such e-way bill accompanying the goods.
The contentions of the appellant is rejected - appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 830
Grant of Bail - input tax credit - fake firms - Offence under Section 132(1)(f) of the C.G.S.T. Act - HELD THAT:- It is directed that accused petitioners shall be released on bail provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 5, 00, 000/- together with two sureties in the sum of ₹ 2, 50, 000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
-
2020 (11) TMI 829
Grant of Bail - allegation of availment of inadmissible input tax credit - bail is sought on the ground that arrest of the accused was arbitrary and illegal as there is no adjudication of any tax liability outstanding or contravening of GST Act - HELD THAT:- The grant of bail requires striking a delicate balance between two conflicting interests, namely, on one hand. the liberty of an individual and on the other hand, the investigative rights of the prosecuting agency for the interest of the society. Although personal liberty and freedom of a person cannot be undermined, but at the same time, the legitimate rights of the investigative agency has to be taken due consideration of. The liberty of the individual is not absolute and same can be withdrawn if it is found to be creating an impediment in the rights of the prosecuting agency, The bifocal interests of justice to the individual and the rights of prosecution requires a fine balance to be maintained.
In the instant case, the investigation is at a nascent stage and granting bail to accused at this stage would certainly undermine the rights of the prosecuting agency as tempering of evidence by accused which in this case would be documentary cannot be ruled out.
Bail application is dismissed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 828
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - Revocation of cancellation of GST registration - non filing of returns for a continuous period of six months - non submission of reply to the show cause notice dated 20.12.2019 within the time specified therein - HELD THAT:- During the personal hearing appellant has stated that their CSTIN has been restored. The adjudicating authority has also submitted their report that the present status of GSTIN is active. Further, the appellant has also withdrawn their appeal vide mail dated 15.10.2020.
Since, the jurisdictional authority has restored the said registration and the appellant has also withdrawn their appeal, Appeal is allowed to be withdrawn - appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2020 (11) TMI 827
Stay petition - grievance of the petitioner is that though Ext.P3 application for stay was heard on 31.10.2019, based on Ext.P4 notice dated 18.10.2019, the 2nd respondent is yet to pass orders on that application.HELD THAT:- This Court deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent to conduct a re-hearing on Ext.P3 application for stay, with notice to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, and pass orders on that application, within a further period of two weeks. The 2nd respondent shall also consider the request of the petitioner for early disposal of Ext.P2 appeal, considering the fact that he is a senior citizen aged 80 years.
-
2020 (11) TMI 826
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - eligibility of reasons to believe - HELD THAT:- There is no infirmity in action u/s 148 of the Act wherein, there was a requisite information and the ld AO has applied his mind and found that there is reason to believe for the reopening of the assessment as according to AIR information assessee has deposited ₹ 1049000/- in his bank account with Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd - There is no infirmity in the reopening of the assessment. Accordingly, ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal are dismissed.
Addition u/s 69 - unexplained source of cash deposit - HELD THAT:- Out of the above ₹ 2 lakhs the source of ₹ 26,000/- has been explained by the assessee whereas the balance of ₹ 174,000/- remains unexplained. In view of the above analysis, we direct the ld AO to delete the addition of ₹ 340,000/- out of the addition of ₹ 514000/- sustained by the ld CIT (A) as the source to the above deposit is explained by the assessee out of the withdrawal of cash from the same bank account which was not found to have been utilized by the assessee for any other purposes. Merely some time lag between the withdrawal and deposit without any contrary evidence that such withdrawal has been used by assessee for some other purposes, cannot go against the assessee. Ld CIT (A) has used this proposition to confirm the above addition. Accordingly, we direct ld AO to delete the addition of ₹ 340000/- out of ₹ 514000/- sustained by CIT (A). Thus, This ground of appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
............
|
9911796707
