|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1574 Records
-
2024 (12) TMI 1534
Exemption u/s 10(23C) (iiiab) - while filing the return of income, wrong sub clause of section 10(23C) quoted - HELD THAT:- As undisputed fact that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) and it is only the mistake of the counsel wherein, while filing the return of income, wrong sub clause of section 10(23C) has been mentioned and similar facts were there in the case of the Habrol Cooperative Agricultural Society [2024 (9) TMI 1696 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] wherein, wrong sub clause namely 80P(2)(c) was mentioned in the return form for claiming the deduction instead of deduction to be claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1533
Undisclosed commission for providing accommodation entries -AO on account of non-response from the assessee has held that undisclosed commission income on such accommodation entries @ 1.0% as per the prevailing market rate - main contention of the assessee is that it should be 0.15% - HELD THAT:- We have gone through the order passed by the NFAC for AY 2011-112 against the same assessee and fined that in the said assessment year the Ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO to take the percentage @ 0.15% and not @ 1% as admitted by him.
In the present case Director of the appellant company has admitted to have been providing accommodation entries in lieu of admitted commission@ 0.10% to 0.15% of the turnover. The statement given by the Director has been accepted by the AO.
Going over the facts of the case, order passed by the CIT (A) in the A.Y.11-12, we are in this view that rate of commission should be 0.15% and not @ 1%., accordingly the case of assessee is allowed and the AO is directed to compute the rate the commission @0.15% and not 1%. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1532
Rejecting the application for registration u/s 12A(1)(ac)(ii) - as per CIT(A) objects of the assessee-trust were for the benefit of particular religious community and accordingly, held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption in terms of Section 13(1)(b) - AR argued that what is to be examined is whether the trust had charitable objectives or not and qualified as charitable entity which existed for serving public at large and nothing beyond it
HELD THAT:- CIT(E) has not considered the interpretation in the case of Shastri Yagnapurush Dasji V. Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya [1966 (1) TMI 78 - SUPREME COURT] and also Jamiatul Banaat Tankaria [2024 (10) TMI 712 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] with regard to interpretation of Section 13(1)(b) while issuing registration u/s 12A of the Act.
Hence, we direct the ld. CIT(Exemption) to pass an order afresh after considering the above quoted judgements.
Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1531
Clandestine manufacture and removal of sponge iron - input-output ratio - electricity consumption - case of the Revenue is that to manufacture 1 MT of Sponge Iron 1.67 MT of iron ore is required and to manufacture 1 MT of Sponge Iron 162 KW power is required - extended period of limitation.
HELD THAT:- In this case demand sought to be raised against the Respondent on the basis of estimated production as per input/output ratio of 1:1.67MT and electric consumption is 162 KW for manufacture of 1 MT Sponge Iron. All these basis for confirmation of demand are on estimate basis and there is no tangible evidence has been brought by the Revenue on record from where the Respondent procure other raw materials to manufacture such a huge quantity of Sponge Iron like coal and iron ore.
In the case of Arya Fibres Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (11) TMI 626 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] this Tribunal has laid down law for establish clandestine removal clearance in cases of allegation made of clandestine manufacture and clearance of the goods - As none of the test has been conducted to establish clandestine manufacture and clearance of the goods by the Respondent, therefore, the impugned demand are not sustainable against the Respondent.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The periodical audit took place and no deficiency were found, no objections were raised regarding clandestine removal of goods by the Respondent, therefore, whole of the demand is also barred by limitation as Show Cause Notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation.
Conclusion - i) The allegations of clandestine production and removal require tangible evidence and cannot be based solely on theoretical calculations or expert opinions. ii) As none of the test has been conducted to establish clandestine manufacture and clearance of the goods by the Respondent, therefore, the impugned demand are not sustainable against the Respondent. iii) The demand was barred by limitation, as there was no evidence of fraud or suppression to justify the extended period.
Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1530
Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - extortion of money by impersonating himself - twin conditions of Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 - HELD THAT:- it is evident that the applicant was involved in posting morphed and edited photographs of himself along with the Prime Minister of India and other Ministers of Government of India. He had been impersonating and thus misrepresenting his status and extorting money from people for getting their work done through Government Agencies for personal financial gains. His Facebook Account and Instagram Account revealed posting of the said photographs along with the other documents (invitation card in his name of Oath Taking Ceremony of the Prime Minister of India, invitation card in his name for lunch with the Prime Minister of India etc.) just for persons to believe that he was a person well known to them and thus was successful in extorting them. The recovery of huge amount of money and other related documents and articles corroborate his deeds. The trial in the matter has started in which evidence of one prosecution witness (Sharmila Dalmia/P.W.-1) has been recorded. There is nothing credible to overcome the twin conditions of Section 45 of PMLA, 2002.
Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature and gravity of the offence, it is not inclined to release the applicant on bail - bail application dismissed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1529
Rejection of application preferred by the appellants seeking discharge from the charges punishable under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - instigation or abetment of suicide - proximate cause linking their actions to the deceased's decision to commit suicide - whether the appellants were guilty of abetting the suicide of the deceased under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?
HELD THAT:- The law on abetment has been crystallised by a plethora of decisions of this Court. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment would require the positive act of instigating or intentionally aiding another person to commit suicide. Without such mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, a charge under the aforesaid Section cannot be sustained. Abetment also requires an active act, direct or indirect, on the part of the accused person which left the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide.
This Court in the case of S.S. CHHEENA VERSUS VIJAY KUMAR MAHAJAN AND ORS. [2010 (8) TMI 1189 - SUPREME COURT], had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 306 of the IPC and the ingredients which are essential for abetment, as set out in Section 107 of the IPC. This Court held that abetment involves the mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Therefore, without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid a person in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. This Court further observed that the intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.
More recently, in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat [2024 (12) TMI 1527 - SUPREME COURT], this Court has relied on S.S. Chheena to hold that the element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law, that is deliberate and conspicuous intention to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide, would remain unfulfilled.
This Court has consistently taken the view that instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person is the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide. However, it has been clarified on many occasions that in order to link the act of instigation to the act of suicide, the two occurrences must be in close proximity to each other so as to form a nexus or a chain, with the act of suicide by the deceased being a direct result of the act of instigation by the accused person.
The High Court observed that there is no allegation about any harassment or cruelty meted out by the appellants to the deceased in the Accidental Death Report, however, held that the allegations in the FIR could not be overlooked and the Accidental Death Report and the statements made in the Accidental Death enquiry would be a matter of trial. The High Court also took note of the disputed date of the mahalokadalat but held that incorrect mentioning of the date of the mahalokadalat in the FIR would not be a ground to discharge the appellants, considering the state of mind of the complainant, the deceased’s mother.
The prosecution has failed to prima facie establish that the appellants had any intention to instigate or aid or abet the deceased to commit suicide. No doubt that a young woman of 25 years has lost her life in an unfortunate incident. However, in the absence of sufficient material to show that the appellants had intended by their words to push the deceased into such a position that she was left with no other option but to commit suicide, continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellants would result in an abuse of process of law and as such, it is required to allow the appeal.
Conclusion - Mere harassment or a time gap between alleged instigation and suicide weakens the prosecution's case. Mens rea and a direct or indirect act of instigation are crucial for sustaining charges of abetment to suicide. The necessity of a direct link and proximity between the accused's actions and the suicide for a charge under Section 306 IPC reiterated.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1528
Maintainability of second petition - Dishonour of Cheque - imposition of a condition to deposit 20% of compensation by the Sessions Court - dismissal of petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - rule of audi alterem partem - whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the subsequent petition under section 482, Cr. PC for the reason that it assigned? - HELD THAT:- The High Court was unjustified in dismissing the subsequent petition on the ground that the appellants had withdrawn the earlier petition without obtaining leave to file afresh and, therefore, the petition under consideration was not maintainable.
The procedural laws governing criminal proceedings and civil proceedings in our country are quite dissimilar, though the rule of audi alteram partem and a procedure that is both fair and reasonable to both/all parties for rendering justice are at the heart of both the Cr. PC and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - A close reading of Sections 482, Cr. PC and 115, CPC would also reflect that the purposes sought to be achieved by exercising the high courts’ inherent powers, which the respective procedural laws save, are also at variance. Prudence and propriety in the decision making process, thus, make it imperative for the high courts to not confuse the procedural laws governing criminal and civil proceedings.
The legal position as to whether a second petition under Section 482, Cr. PC would be maintainable or not is no longer res integra - In S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla [2007 (2) TMI 311 - SUPREME COURT], a decision arising out of the N.I. Act, the relevant high court had given the party the liberty to avail any remedy in law, if available, at the time of withdrawing her petition under section 482, Cr. PC. This Court, observed that the high court would have the inherent power to decide any successive petition under section 482 and that it is not denuded of that power by the principle of res judicata.
This Court in Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of U.P. [2023 (10) TMI 1342 - SUPREME COURT], has again held that there is no blanket rule against filing of successive petition under section 482, Cr. PC before the high court. It was also held that if such a petition is filed, it must be seen whether there was any change in facts or circumstances, necessitating the filing of such petition - Change of law can legitimately be regarded as a vital change in circumstance clothing the high court with the power, competence and jurisdiction to entertain the subsequent petition notwithstanding the fact that the earlier petition was withdrawn without obtaining any leave, subject to the satisfaction recorded by the high court that the order prayed for in the subsequent petition ought to be made, inter alia, either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
While there can be no gainsaying that normally the discretion of the Appellate Court should lean towards requiring a deposit to be made with the quantum of such deposit depending upon the factual situation in every individual case, more so because an order under challenge does not bear the mark of invalidity on its forehead, retention of the power of such court not to order any deposit in a given case (which in its view and for the recorded reasons is exceptional) and calling for exercise of the discretion to not order deposit, has to be conceded - Reading and understanding the words used by the legislature in the literal sense does not also result in manifest absurdity and hence tinkering with the same ought to be avoided at all costs. The word ‘may’ shall be read as ‘may’ and ‘shall’ as ‘shall’, wherever they are used in Section 148. This is because, the words mean what they say.
Conclusion - The successive petitions under Section 482, Cr. PC, are maintainable if there is a change in circumstances, such as a change in law. It emphasized the discretion appellate courts have under Section 148 of the N.I. Act regarding deposit conditions.
The impugned order of the High Court dated 18th May, 2024 and the Sessions Court’s order dated 17th October, 2022, stand set aside. The matter is remitted to the Sessions Court to re-examine the issue of ordering deposit - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1527
Abetting the suicide of the deceased - Refusal to discharge the appellants – accused from offences punishable under sections 306, 498A and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - challenge to order of High Court wherein the High Court in the impugned order has dismissed the same and held that the appellants failed to bring any material on record to prove that a prima facie case is not made out to frame charges against them.
Whether a prima facie case under Section 498A, IPC is made out against the appellant – accused? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the deceased has committed suicide after twelve years of marriage. In these twelve years, the informant and other witnesses on record have stated that the deceased had informed them on multiple occasions that she was subjected to physical and mental harassment by the appellants herein. It has also been stated that once before she had returned to her parental home owing to the alleged cruelty and was later sent back to her matrimonial house. Deceased’s father, who is the informant, has also stated that around twelve months prior to her death, the appellants had sold the deceased’s streedhan and had tortured her when she demanded them back. The same has also been stated by her relatives who have been examined by the Investigating Officer during investigation - From a perusal of the FIR, findings of the Investigating Officer in the chargesheet as well as the statements of the deceased’s cousins recorded during investigation prima facie indicate that the deceased was subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty by her husband and the in-laws. There is also the specific instance related to the alleged selling of the gold ornaments and subsequent cruelty upon the demand for return made by the deceased. A preliminary analysis, as required during the stage of charge-framing, points towards the probable commission of the offence of cruelty as provided under section 498-A, IPC.
The appellants cannot be discharged for offence under section 498-A, IPC and should be charged with and tried for the same.
Whether a prima facie case under Section 306, IPC is made out against the appellant – accused? - HELD THAT:- Section 306 of the IPC penalizes those who abet the act of suicide by another. For a person to be charged under this section, the prosecution must establish that the accused contributed to the act of suicide by the deceased. This involvement must satisfy one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC. These conditions include the accused instigated or encouraged the individual to commit suicide, conspiring with others to ensure that the act was carried out, or engaging in conduct (or neglecting to act) that directly led to the person taking his/her own life.
For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. The cause of suicide, especially in the context of abetment, involves complex attributes of human behavior and reactions, requiring the Court to rely on cogent and convincing proof of the accused’s role in instigating the act. Mere allegations of harassment are not enough unless the accused’s actions were so compelling that the victim perceived no alternative but to take their own life. Such actions must also be proximate to the time of the suicide. The Court examines whether the accused’s conduct, including provoking, urging, or tarnishing the victim’s self-esteem, created an unbearable situation. If the accused's actions were intended only to harass or express anger, they might not meet the threshold for abetment or investigation. Each case demands a careful evaluation of facts, considering the accused’s intent and its impact on the victim.
This Court in UDE SINGH AND ORS. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA [2019 (7) TMI 2054 - SUPREME COURT], held that to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the intent or mental state to commit the specific crime must be evident when assessing culpability.
The appellants did not have the requisite mens rea and neither did they commit any positive or direct act or omission to instigate or aid in the commission of suicide by the deceased - the ingredients for the offence under Section 306, IPC are not made out even on a preliminary analysis of the material on record. Therefore, they cannot be charged under Section 306, IPC and thus deserve to be discharged of the same.
Conclusion - i) The charge u/s 498A, IPC upheld, emphasizing that the allegations and evidence presented constituted a prima facie case of cruelty. The trial under this provision will proceed against the appellants. ii) Regarding Section 306, IPC, the Court found no sufficient evidence of abetment, resulting in the discharge of the appellants from this charge.
The appeal filed by the appellants is partly allowed, they are discharged from the charges under Section 306 of the IPC, however the charge under Section 498A of the IPC is upheld and the trial under this provision shall proceed against them.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1526
Classification of imported goods - Hybrid/Pure Matrix Cards for PTN Equipment - to be classified under under CTI 8517 70 90 or under CTI 8517 70 10 as parts of goods falling under Heading 8571 and CTI 8517 70 90 for Small Form Factor Pluggable for PTN Equipment? - it was held by CESTAT that Hybrid/Pure Matrix Cards for PTN Equipment would be classifiable under CTI 8517 70 10 as ‘parts’ of goods and Small Form Factor Pluggable for PTN Equipment would be classifiable under CTI 8517 70 90.
HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1525
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Whether under the given factual set of circumstances, the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, could at all be made applicable to grant the benefit of limitation to the Appellant, during the pendency of the proceedings by way of application? - HELD THAT:- There was a conscious intent that the Ld. Senior Counsel for the Appellant has chosen to address upon Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.192/2022, which is against the Impugned order that was decided on 28.04.2022, which was arising from the interlocutory application proceedings of the same company petition and the principle proceedings of admission into the CIRP, under Section 9, which was made as the subject matter of the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.193/2022. For the reasons best known, the appeal CA (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.193/2022, was chosen to be addressed upon at a later stage for the reason being that, the consequential effect would be that since the appeal itself was preferred with 45 days of delay, may be that the exclusion which has been sought by the Appellant for a period from 15.03.2022 to 28.04.2022 of 44 days will not be a period, which will be falling within the exemption clause to the proviso, which is strict in its applicability and upon failure to succeed in pressing upon the Condone Delay Application, it would have a direct bearing on the Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.192/2022. Hence, the aspect of exclusion, which has been sought to be argued by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant, since would be a variable factor in each of the cases depending upon the fact involved therein, cannot be universally made applicable as a concept for the purposes of dealing with an aspect of limitation, when the law itself very strictly creates a restriction on the Appellate Tribunal that while determining the aspect of limitation, it cannot be barge upon, and extend the period beyond which is prescribed under the proviso to Section 61 (2).
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kalpraj Dharamshi [2021 (3) TMI 496 - SUPREME COURT] has attracted the implications of Section 14 of the Limitation Act because writ remedy was not statutorily contemplated under law. These are not the circumstances which would apply for this instant case, for the purposes of extending the limbs of the interpretation of limitation as prescribed under Section 61 (2), owing to the reason that I & B Code itself has been given an overriding effect to the other law and once it contains a self-contained provision, governing the field of the limitation it has to be determined, on the basis of the strict mandate of the statute provided under Section 61 (2) and at the most it could be extendable upto the upper limit under the proviso to Section 61 (2) of I & B Code. Hence, the Condone Delay Application which has been sought for, is 45 days, which is outside the ambit of the provisions contained under Section 61(2), cannot be allowed.
Application for condonation of delay rejected.
Withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings under Section 12A of the I & B Code - Whether the Appellant can compel the Respondent to withdraw the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings under Section 12A of the I & B Code based on a claimed debt settlement? - HELD THAT:- While exercising powers under Rule 11, the Ld. NCLAT has approved the settlement of a dispute in relation to the dues payable to the Respondent No.03 therein the said case. This would have been a case, had the controversy ended at the stage when there was a Debt Settlement Agreement, the fact of which stands vehemently denied by the Respondent. We feel it apt to observe at this stage itself, that authority of a Hon’ble Apex Court laying down the law and that too which is procedural in nature will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case and the same cannot be made universally applicable irrespective of considering the facts and circumstances which are involved therein.
The instant appeal would stand answered against the Appellant and we are of the considered view, that a distorted interpretation to the Judgment relied by the Appellant, cannot be given in a manner to mould a Judgment, in a manner as if a right which are given to an Applicant to withdraw an application under Regulation 30A to be read with Section 60 could be chiselled in a manner to impose upon an Applicant by forcing upon him by soliciting a judicial direction to withdraw his own proceedings over which he has a right to pursue and continue in the light of the mandate of Article 14 to be read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as there cannot be a deprivation of right to judicial remedies to the citizen of this country of ours, by a judicial adjudication, where a deprivation is being attempted to be forced upon him by calling upon a party by a judicial order for not to pursue a proceeding in which he otherwise intends to continue, being the master of the proceedings drawn by him.
Appeal dismissed.
Conclusion - i) Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not apply to intra-court applications within the same proceeding, as it is intended for proceedings in courts lacking jurisdiction. ii) The decision to withdraw CIRP proceedings under Section 12A lies with the Applicant, and judicial directions cannot compel such withdrawal.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1524
Taxability - Sale of Extended Warranty, Consumer Care Services of Registration of Vehicles, Agency Commission from Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Commission received from DGS&D - non-registration of the respondent's unit - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble High Court has remanded the matter for reconsideration of the said demand. Appellant do not dispute the said demand in this remand proceedings as the same was never under challenge even in the appeal filed by them. They have admitted this demand of Rs 42,799/- even at the time of adjudication. Thus the demand made in respect of this amount is upheld and the impugned order in respect of all other demands made, set aside as the issue in respect of those has not been remanded for reconsideration as per the order of Hon’ble High Court.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1523
Seeking grant of bail - smuggling of cigarettes - challenge to summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- This Court clearly stated in Annexure A14 judgment that, the petitioners are bound to appear before the Customs Officers based on summons. After the dismissal of W.P(Crl).No.1307/2024 on 02.12.2024 this bail application is filed on the same day. It is opined that, when a notice is issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the petitioners are bound to appear before the Customs Officials. After approaching this Court by filing a Writ Petition challenging the notice issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which is not entertained by this Court, it is not proper on the part of the petitioners to approach this Court with a bail application. This Court in Annexure A14 judgment clearly stated that the petitioners are bound to appear before the Customs Officer.
This bail application need not be entertained - Bail Application is dismissed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1522
Denial of Deduction u/s 80G - contribution towards Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund - assessee spent an amount towards CSR expenditure but disallowed the same in statement of total income - HELD THAT:- Though deduction has been granted for donation to these funds, however, it has specifically been made clear that any sum spent in pursuance of Corporate Social Responsibility under sub-section (5) of section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013 towards these funds will not be eligible for deduction from the total income of the donor. We find that there is no such restriction for donation out of CSR funds to Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund.
We are of the considered opinion that the impugned deduction u/s 80G would be available to the assessee.
AR has cited many decisions of Tribunal taking a view favorable to the assessee which include Interglobe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (6) TMI 8 - ITAT DELHI] as well as Jamnagar Utilities and Power P. Ltd. [2024 (7) TMI 1585 - ITAT MUMBAI] - Therefore, we take similar view in preference to view expressed in the earlier decision of Agilent Technologies international P. Ltd. [2023 (12) TMI 1090 - ITAT DELHI] Accordingly, we direct Ld. AO to allow impugned deduction u/s 80G. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1521
Denial of grant of registration u/s.12A and approval u/s. 80G(5) - time allowed to the appellant for compliance is unreasonable - HELD THAT:- As lack of proper and fair opportunity having been granted to appellant trust and the principles of natural justice being fair to both the parties.
Considering the same, we are of the view that the appellant was for sufficient cause prevented from prosecuting the appeal effectively, therefore deserves to be given one more opportunity to prove its case on merits. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1520
Rejection of Application filed for approval u/s 80G - assessee had selected the wrong code while filing the application - HELD THAT:- Application filed by the assessee was rejected on account of a typographical error of wrong mentioning of particular code and no other adverse findings has been given on merit by CIT, Exemption, Pune.
In the light of the circular no 7/2024 issued by CBDT on 25-04-2024, i.e. after the filing of application by the assessee wherein the issue of mentioning wrong section code has been addressed / considered as a common & frequent error and also observing the fact that in the instant case Ld. CIT, Exemption, Pune has not given any adverse finding on merits of the case, against the assessee, we deem it fit to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT, Exemption and remand the matter back to him with the direction to treat the application of the assessee as filed under code 14 clause (iii) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G (or under the desired section code) and consider the same for grant of approval u/s 80G(5) of the IT Act in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1519
Bogus purchases - rejecting the books of account maintained by the assessee u/s 145(3) - additions made by applying the Gross Profit (GP) - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2024 (10) TMI 1628 - ITAT DELHI] we fail to understand the reasoning of AO as at one hand he stated sale/purchase claimed to have been made by M/s Kamal Trading Company as bogus then he proceeds to make addition on the basis of GP disclosed by the assessee without any justification and explanation. Such order, on merit as well, fails to meet the test of law and deserves to be quashed. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1518
Cancellation of client’s registration under Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - time limitation - petitioner is ready and willing to pay the tax, interest, late fee, penalty and any other sum required to be paid for the return form of his client to be accepted by the department - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of M/s. Mohanty Enterprises [2022 (11) TMI 1521 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] where it was 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.'
The writ petition is disposed of.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1517
Cancellation of client’s registration under Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - client is ready and willing to pay the tax, interest, late fee, penalty and any other sum required to be paid for the return form of his client to be accepted by the department - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of M/s. Mohanty Enterprises [2022 (11) TMI 1521 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] where it was 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 (12) TMI 1516
Appeal to the Tribunal, which had not yet been constituted - HELD THAT:- The submission made on behalf of petitioner regarding corresponding notification reducing requirement of the deposit to 10% of disputed tax for impugned first appellate order to remain stayed, is accepted. The deposit be made accordingly.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (12) TMI 1515
Challenge to impugned order passed by the respondent - difference between the ITC available as per GSTR-2A and ITC availed as per GSTR-3B - HELD THAT:- The impugned order passed by the respondent dated 27.04.2024 is hereby set aside.
The petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - the impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the petitioner shall submit its objections within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with supporting documents/material.
Petition disposed off.
........
|
9911796707
