Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2022 2022 (12) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 81 to 100 of 1518 Records

• 2022 (12) TMI 1438 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Provisional release of goods - Section 110 A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- A similar order in M/S. EXCELLENT BETELNUT PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, NAGPUR REGIONAL UNIT; COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ICD BORKHEDI, NAGPUR [2021 (12) TMI 1454 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] could be passed in the present case, where it was held that We are of the opinion that purposes of this petition shall be served if this petition is treated as an application made under Section 110 A of the Customs Act, 1962 and decide appropriately.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1437 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Levy of penalty - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - Discharge Certificate of SVLDRS-4 - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal in the case of P.B. VYAS VERSUS COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III [2021 (3) TMI 1305 - CESTAT MUMBAI] has held that insistence of payment of penalty by a co-noticee, when the main party has settled the issue under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, defeats the spirit of the scheme itself.

  The penalty imposed on the Accountant, Mr. Sasthi Charan Banerjee being a co-noticee, is set aside - Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1436 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Assessment u/s 144C r.w.s. 144B - Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) - Disallowance of deduction u/s 80G - DRP concluded that even though deduction for CSR Expenses was not allowable u/s 37 (in view of the Explanation 2 to Section 37 of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2014, with effect from 01.04.2015), there was no bar for allowance of the same under Section 80G of the Act (except for the donations made to the Swach Bharat Kosh and the Clean Ganga Fund), provided all the other conditions of Sec. 80G are fulfilled.

  HELD THAT:- DRP issued specific direction to allow deduction u/s 80G of the Act after verifying whether the other conditions specified u/s 80G were fulfilled. As per mandate of Section 144C(13) of the Act, upon receipt of directions issued by DRP the Assessing Officer was required to complete the assessment in conformity with the directions issued by the DRP.

  We hold that the Final Assessment Order, passed by the AO was not in conformity with the directions issued by the DRP and is therefore, set aside, being contrary provisions of Section 144C(13) of the Act. The issue is remanded back to the file of AO with the directions to pass the Final Assessment Order in conformity with the directions issued by the DRP. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1435 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Seeking grant of Regular Bail - smuggling - Ganja - procedure for collection of sample, faulty - violation of standing order 1/88 of the guidelines of NCB - HELD THAT:- As mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment of UOI. VERSUS BAL MUKUND & ORS. [2009 (3) TMI 914 - SUPREME COURT], standing order 1/88 has been opined to be a "requirement of law" - The standing order 1/88 mandates that the transferring of content of all packets into one and then drawing a sample from the mixture is not permitted.

  Thus, in the present case, the instructions in 1/88 has not been followed and the sample has been drawn after mixing the contents of various packets into one container. The same has caused serious prejudice to the case of the applicant. Since the collection of sample itself is faulty, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be applicable - applicant is in custody since 26.02.2022 and has no criminal antecedents. He has no criminal cases of any nature pending against him.

  The applicant is entitled to be released on bail u/s 20/29 of the NDPS Act registered at PS Crime Branch on the subject to terms and conditions fulfilled - application allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1434 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD
  

  Approval of Resolution Plan - Section 30(6) read with Section 31(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Regulation 39(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 - HELD THAT:- All requirements provided under Section 30(2) of Code and Regulation 36 to 39 of CIRP Regulations, 2016 have been complied with - It is also found that the Resolution Plan addresses the cause for default and contains measures to run the Corporate Debtor in future - it is also found Resolution plan is both feasible and viable as held by CoC and it also contains provision for its effective implementation.

  The approved Resolution Plan shall become effective from the date of passing of this order - the order of moratorium dated 01.09.2020 passed by this Adjudicating Authority under Section 14 of the Code shall cease to have effect from the date of this order.

  Application allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1433 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Accrual of income - reliance on documents seized in search - In view of the admitted facts, AO, FAA, and ITAT having concurrently recorded findings of the fact against the assessee

  HELD THAT:- Having considered the review petition on both merits and delay, we find no grounds to interfere.

  Review petition is dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1432 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Stay of demand - petition by directing the appellant to deposit 20% of the tax - high pitched assessments - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the assessments are high pitched assessments and when such high pitched assessments are appealed against and an order of stay is sought for either before the AO by filing an application u/s 220(6) orders are passed by the assessing officer either keeping the notice of recovery in abeyance and not treating the assessee as an assessee in default till the appeal is disposed of.

  There are yet another set of cases where the AO for reasons to be recorded imposes certain conditions as a condition for grant of stay. The appellant’s case falls under the second category where the assessing officer has directed 20% of the demand to be paid by the assessee for being entitled to grant of stay.

  It is an undisputed fact that as against the impugned assessment order, appeal has been filed before the CIT (Appeals), second respondent on 25th January, 2018. It is not clear as to why the appeal is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) for more than two years. Identical issues have come up for consideration before various High Courts and we would refer to two of the decisions of the High Court of Delhi, namely, Valvoline Cummins Limited [2008 (5) TMI 20 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI] and Soul [2008 (8) TMI 502 - DELHI HIGH COURT].

  In both these cases, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi has considered high pitched assessments and has also taken note of the instruction issued by the CBDT and have held that when the assessments are unreasonably high pitched, the notices of recovery should remain stayed till the disposal of the appeal by the first appellate authority. In cases on hand, the return filed by the assessee was a loss return. However, the assessing officer has assessed the income and it is definitely a high pitched assessment. That apart, we find that the appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) well within the period of limitation and is pending since 25th January, 2018.

  We are informed by the Advocate appearing for the appellant that till date the notice of demand has not been enforced on the assessee. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appeal itself should be directed to be disposed of by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at an early date and until then, recovery proceedings should be kept in abeyance.

  Appeals are allowed and the order passed in the writ petitions is set aside with a direction to keep the recovery notices issued by the assessing officer kept in abeyance and direct the CIT(Appeals), the appellate authority, to disposed of the appeals on merits.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1431 - ITAT HYDERABAD
  

  TP adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Exclude Infosys BPO Company from the list of comparable as company has diversified functions, top global brand and huge turnover of Rs.1831.36 Crores.

  M/s. Eclerx Services Ltd. is not comparable since it is functionally different. Since there are no segmental details, expenditure incurred on outsourcing, we are of the opinion that the CIT (Appeals) is justified in excluding this company as comparable. Admittedly, the functions of the assessee as well as e-Clerx have not change for the last two years i.e., from 2010-11 and 201213. AO in these two years had not considered e-Clerx as a comparable. No reason to grant any relief to the Revenue. Accordingly, we uphold the order passed by the ld.CIT(A) excluding the e-Clerx from the list of comparable.

  Remit the issue of comparability in respect of these three companies i.e. M/s. Jindal Intellicom Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Informed Technologies Limited and M/s. Ace BPO Services Pvt. Ltd. to examine and decide as per law.

  Interest rate charged on the trade receivable - AR had submitted that the Tribunal had allowed the credit period of 120 days as held in OSI Systems Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad [2020 (12) TMI 294 - ITAT HYDERABAD] and trade payables are required to be setoff against the trade receivables and the interest should be restricted to LIBOR plus 100 - CIT(A) has restricted the charging of interest at LIBOR +200 basis points allowing the credit period of 60 days - HELD THAT:- Though, the ld.AR cited the decision in the case of OSI System Pvt. Ltd.[Supra] but, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case as the Tribunal in the said case had held applicability of LIBOR +200 basis points to be applied on the trade receivables. Similarly, the Tribunal without assigning any reason has held that 120 days credit period is reasonable period.

  In our view, no documentary evidence has been brought on record before us so that we can infer that 120 days credit period is a reasonable period. CIT(A) after relying upon the decision of OSI Systems (supra) for the reasons best known to him, had arbitrarily reduced the credit period from 120 days to 60 days.

  The approach of ld.CIT(A) is without any basis. Hence, we direct the TPO/Assessing Officer to charge interest at LIBOR + 200 points. We direct AO / TPO to allow the credit period and charge interest over and above the outstanding period of 120 days.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1430 - SC ORDER
  

  Seeking release the property seized under the alleged crime under the PML Act - it was held by High Court that The request of the ED counsel for continuing the prosecution against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law.

  HELD THAT:- The special leave petition is dismissed with liberty to move in case the challenge to the discharge in the predicate offence succeeds.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1429 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Maintainability of appeal - Duties and functions carried out by IRP. - Disallowing certain CIRP expenses claimed by the Appellant/IRP - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the order impugned. The civil appeal is, accordingly, dismissed - However, liberty granted to the appellant to file an application before the NCLAT in reference to the facts which have been noticed in Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the order impugned dated 30th May, 2022.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1428 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  AO jurisdiction to assess the case of assessee - Tribunal held that after the Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai had passed an Order on 19 December 2014, transferring the assessment jurisdiction from Mumbai to Pune, the assessing officer at Mumbai had no jurisdiction over the file of the assessee on the date when the Order of assessment came to be passed on 24 December 2014 - HELD THAT:- Tribunal rejected the argument of the revenue that the AO would continue to exercise the jurisdiction in the case of the assessee inasmuch as PAN of the assessee came to be transferred only 29 December 2014. It was held that the transfer of PAN is consequential to the Order of transfer of jurisdiction and that it is a PAN, which follows the jurisdiction and not vice versa.

  In our view, there is no illegality in the Order dated 9 August 2017, which has been passed by the Tribunal.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1427 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
  

  Application filed under Section 9 of the IBC, 2016 rejected - rejection on the ground that it does not fulfil the threshold as prescribed under Section 4 proviso where minimum default amount has been increased to Rs. 1 Crores by Notification of MCA dated 24.03.2020 - HELD THAT:- The Application has been filed by the Operational Creditor on 01.12.2021 for an amount of Rs. 42,94,620/-. The issue raised in the Appeal is fully covered by the Judgement of this Tribunal in the matter of HYLINE MEDICONZ PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ANANDALOKE MEDICAL CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED [2022 (9) TMI 954 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI] where it was held that no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting Section 9 application filed by the Appellant on 18.01.2021 which did not fulfil the threshold of Rupees One Crore.

  Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1426 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Assessees in default u/s 201/201(1A) - failure to deduct withholding tax against External Development Charges (EDC) paid to Haryana Urban Development Authority - order passed u/s 271C by respondent no.1 and the notice of demand of even date passed u/s 156 of the Act.

  HELD THAT:- To be noted, the aforementioned penalty order and demand notice concern Financial Year (FY) 2013-2014.

  Issue notice. Counter-affidavit(s) will be filed within the next ten days. Rejoinder(s) thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1425 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Revision u/s 263 against company dissolved/ non-existing - assessment in the hands of the representative/agent - Who may be regarded as agent u/s 163? - whether the CIT has power to pass an order u/s 163 of the Act? - HELD THAT:- As per provisions of section 163 it does not show the authority as to who can pass the order u/s 163 of the Act. Though section 246 of the Act which contains the provisions relating to the appealable orders before the CIT at clause (d) which mentions “An order made u/s 163 of the Act treating the assessee as agent of the non agent” which means that the order u/s 163 of the Act is to be passed by an authority below the rank of a commissioner, because if the commissioner passes the order, then it cannot be appealed against before the ld. CIT(A).

  Section 253 of the Act contains the provisions relating to appeals to the appellate Tribunal and in the said section, there is mention of all orders passed under different sections of the Act which are appealable before the appellate Tribunal but there is no mention of order passed u/s 163 of the Act, which means that the commissioner has no power to pass an order u/s 163 of the Act.

  Though the ld. DR had vehemently stated that the commissioner has concurrent jurisdiction/powers as that of the Assessing Officer, but in light of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in this contention of the ld. DR.

  In light of the provisions of section 163 considered in light of the aforementioned discussion, order passed u/s 163 of the Act by the CIT, International-2 deserves to be quashed and treated as nonest. The ld. CIT assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on the basis of order passed u/s 163 of the Act.

  Since the very basis [order u/s 163 of the Act] has been removed, the super structure i.e. order u/s 263 of the Act must fall.

  Original assessment against company[Non resident] now dissolved - As there is no dispute that the Assessing Officer framed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act in the case of Monet Limited in the status of non-resident. In our considered opinion and understanding of law, since the principal has been assessed to tax than for the same income, there cannot be a separate assessment in the hands of the representative/agent, when the alleged representative/agent are also non-residents.

  Principal Monet Limited has been extinguished. Then how can there be representative /agent of non-existing company. Provisions of section 163 of the Act are not akin to that of section 159 wherein a legal heir is substituted in place of a deceased assessee. This answers the third issue raised by Shri Pardiwalla.

  CIT, International Taxation-2 passed an order u/s 163 of the Act without having any such authority and thereafter, wrongly assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act treating Cairnhill CIPEF Limited and Cairnhill CGPE Limited as representative /agent of Monet Limited which extinguished on 19.12.2018 and framed the impugned orders which do not have any support /backing of any provisions of the Act.

  Assessee appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1424 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - validity of Order passed u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 - period of limitation - petitioner as pleaded that proceedings were time barred as the window available to the respondent/revenue for issuance of fresh notices under the new regime was available only between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- Revenue, cannot but accept that insofar as the first aspect is concerned i.e., limitation, the same is covered by the judgment rendered by the coordinate bench in Suman Jeet Agarwal [2022 (9) TMI 1384 - DELHI HIGH COURT]

  For second aspect revenue says that there is no specific assertion in the counter-affidavit. Therefore, quite clearly, the department has not taken a stand either way, on the assertion made that the said amount has been taxed in the hands of the creditor.

  Thus, for the foregoing reasons we are inclined to set aside the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) and notice issued u/s 148 of the Act.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1423 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of reopening of assessment - notice issued u/s 148A(b) - period of limitation - as notice issued u/s 148 is time-barred as issued beyond the window available i.e., between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 as per the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 - HELD THAT:- The record shows that on two previous occasions, i.e., 10.10.2022 and 21.11.2022, opportunity was given to Mr Maratha to obtain instructions. Obviously, no instructions have been received by Mr Maratha.

  Issue notice. Respondents accepts notice on behalf of the respondents (which includes CBDT/respondent no.3). A counter-affidavit will be filed within three weeks from today.List the matter on 21.07.2023

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1422 - ITAT DELHI
  

  CIT(A) passed ex parte - Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Denial of natural justice - Addition of unconfirmed sundry creditors - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that by dismissing the appeal without considering the issue on merits, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the mandate required in Sub Section (6) of Section 250 - it is also a well settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing should be offered to the parties and no parties should be condemned unheard.

  We set aside the impugned order of CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issue after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and considering the submissions of the assessee - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1421 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Seeking direction being issued to respondent no. 2 to decide and rule on the petitioner’s application dated 31.03.2021 - case of petitioner is that the reason that the petitioner has been issued the show cause-notice dated 06.12.2022 is inextricably linked to the decision by respondent no. 2 on the aforementioned application - HELD THAT:- The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no. 2 or any other officer who is assigned with the task to dispose of the petitioner’s application dated 31.03.2021, to dispose of the same within the next six weeks.

  The application will disposed of by way of a speaking order.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1420 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  

  Exemption u/s 11 - objects of the trust or institution and the genuineness of its activities - List on 25th April, 2023 along with CUTTACK DISTRICT TENNIS ASSOCIATION [2023 (4) TMI 1228 - ORISSA HIGH COURT]. In the meantime, defects be removed.

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 1419 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Seeking grant of Anticipatory bail - bungling and misappropriation of funds and cheating etc - supply of medicines at exorbitant price, causing huge loss to the Government - HELD THAT:- Looking at the nature of offence and also taking note of the fact that the economic offences constitute/form a different class and while considering the bail application of an accused in such an offence, it is required to be visited differently than the offences under the IPC, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail. This anticipatory bail application is, therefore, rejected.

  However, it is provided that if the accused-applicant surrenders and applies for regular bail within seven days from today, the same shall be considered, preferably on the same day, keeping in mind that the accused-applicant was not arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement, invoking the powers under Section 19 of the PMLA during the investigation and he had cooperated with the investigation - Application disposed off.

  ---

123456789........ 76