|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 1182 Records
-
2025 (2) TMI 842
Cancellation of registration of the petitioner - registration had been obtained by fraud/willful misstatement or suppression of material facts as enumerated in Section 29(2)(e) of the Act - non-consideration of the documents relied upon by the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is true that the petitioner had relied upon the electricity bills issued in the name of Tarak Nath Pandey as also the leave and licence agreement. It is noted that the leave and licence agreement dated 12th October, 2018 was valid for a period of 11 months. No attempt has been made by the petitioner to establish the factum payment of licence fee of Rs. One thousand per month to the said Tarak Nath Pandey. No attempt has also been made to demonstrate that the petitioner had been making payment of electricity charges to the said Tarak Nath Pandey for occupying the room in question in terms of the leave and licence agreement. The certificate of enlistment issued in favour of the petitioner for the assessment year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, though cannot be doubted which was available upto 31th March, 2020, however, at the same time, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner had not challenged the observations as regards the spot visit by the Bureau of Investigation. No attempt was made by the petitioner to respond to the show cause or to appear before the appellate authority.
Having regard thereto, the inference drawn by the Proper Officer in the facts of the case appears to be plausible one. The above order does not appear to be one which is based on no evidence or can be said to be perverse. As such no interference is called for.
Conclusion - The petitioner's failure to provide sufficient evidence to refute the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation led to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 841
Validity of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - extension of time limit for passing the orders under Section 73 of the CGST Act - availment of input tax credit - HELD THAT:- The impugned order dated 27.12.2023 passed by the respondent No.7 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent No.7 to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the CGST Act, as amended, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 2(two) months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (2) TMI 840
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - main grievance of the petitioner is that since the impugned demand notice was uploaded in the GST portal and the hardcopy of the notice was served only on 16.04.2024, the petitioner was constrained to file the appeal with a delay of 142 days - HELD THAT:- Considering the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents, as well as the fact that the notices, which were uploaded in the portal were served to the petitioner belatedly, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay. Therefore, the Court is inclined to condone the delay of 142 days in filing the appeal.
The delay of 142 days in filing the appeal before the first respondent is condoned and the order of the appellate authority/first respondent is hereby set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 839
Reversal of ITC claimed - timeliness of filing GSTR-3B returns for availing ITC due to various difficulties faced by the taxpayers - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in the present Writ Petition, has been squarely covered by the common order of this Court, SRI GANAPATHI PANDI INDUSTRIES [2024 (10) TMI 1631 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], batch, wherein, this Court has categorically held 'this Court considering the fact that the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is only with regard to the availment of ITC, which is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, and in the light of the subsequent developments took place, whereby, Section 16 of the CGST Act was amended and sub-section (5) was inserted to Section 16, which came into force with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017, the petitioners are entitled to avail ITC in respect of GSTR-3B filed in respect of FYs 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21 as the case may be, on or before 30.11.2021, is inclined to quash the impugned orders.'
Conclusion - The impugned order dated 26.02.2021 is quashed insofar as it relates to the claim made by the petitioner for ITC which is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, 2017 but, within the period prescribed in terms of Section 16 (5) of the said Act - the respondent-Department is restrained from initiating any proceedings against the petitioners by virtue of the impugned order based on the issue of limitation.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 838
Seeking permission to withdraw this writ application with liberty to seek remedy before the Competent Authority - HELD THAT:- This writ application is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. All contentions are left open to the parties.
-
2025 (2) TMI 837
Cancellation of the registration of the petitioner on the premise that the statutory returns have not been filed for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT:- This Court has been consistently following the directions issued in Tvl. Suguna Cutpiece Center's case [2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein, under identical circumstances, this Court has directed the revocation of registration subject to conditions.
The benefit extended by this Court vide its earlier order in Suguna Cut-piece Centre's case, may be extended to the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (2) TMI 836
Rectification application u/s 254 - pendency of the application filed by the assessee before the Settlement Commission as per the provision of Section 245F(2) - assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT challenging the order passed by the CIT(Appeal) with an application to condone the delay in preferring the appeal - ITAT by order condoned the delay of 4379 days and remitted the matter back to the CIT(Appeal) for fresh consideration on merits.
As decided by HC [2024 (4) TMI 1230 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] No infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that there is no mistake apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal wherein after following the decision of the Coordinate Bench, the Tribunal condoned the delay and as the CIT(Appeal) did not adjudicate the issue on merits and dismissed the appeals of the respondent-assessee as not maintainable in view of the order passed by the Settlement Commission on the ground that the matters have abated, the Tribunal has rightly remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeal)
HELD THAT:- As stated at the Bar that the application before the Settlement Commission has not been decided, and an order under Section 245D(4) on the application is to be passed.
It is only if the application for settlement is rejected without providing for terms of settlement that Section 245HA of the 1961 Act will be applicable and the appellate proceedings will stand revived.
The stand of the Revenue that the assessee must give up his right to contest the assessment order on merits, if the settlement application is rejected without providing for terms of settlement, is misconceived and must be rejected.
In the peculiar facts of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay, as well as setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restoring the first appeal.
Recording the aforesaid, we dismiss the present special leave petition. Keep the appellate proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of the application by the Settlement Commission in terms of the 1961 Act
-
2025 (2) TMI 835
Maintainability of appeal on low tax effect - assessee submits that the tax effect in these appeals is less than Rs. 2 Crores; therefore, these appeals should be disposed of - HELD THAT:- As held in V.M. Salgaonkar and Brothers (P.) Ltd [2024 (12) TMI 717 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] concerning M/s IPL Loan Trust and connected matters [2025 (2) TMI 453 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Axis AD Print Media (India) Ltd.) [2025 (2) TMI 770 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and connected appeals hold that the monetary limits prescribed in CBDT circulars would apply to pending appeals. Still, the exceptions carved out by the CBDT circulars would apply only prospectively i.e. from the date of the introduction of such exception.
Admittedly, before 20 August 2018, these appeals were not covered by any exceptions. However, these appeals were filed because they were beyond the monetary limits prescribed then. The monetary limits have now been revised. These revised monetary limits would also apply to the pending appeals as held in the above precedents. By applying the revised monetary limits to the pending appeals and noting that the exception upon which the Revenue relies was unavailable before 20 August 2018, we uphold the objection on behalf of the assessee and dispose of these two appeals without any cost orders.
These appeals are disposed of because the tax effect is within the monetary limits set out by the CBDT.
-
2025 (2) TMI 834
Deduction u/s 80IC - appellant/assessee must demonstrate compliance with the conditions set forth in Rule 18BBB(4) - Form 10CCB, associated with Rule 18BBB, requires specific information, including approvals from local/state authorities - evident failure on the part of the appellant to place on the record an agreement or approval that may have been granted to it by either a local or state authority - HELD THAT:- Stipulation of an agreement with the Central/State government or local authority would have to necessarily accompany Form 10CCB, that it has proceeded to remit the matter for examination of AO.
We find that it has while framing that direction for remit clearly lost sight of the principal distinction between Sections 80IA and 80IC. As we view Section 80IC it becomes apparent that there is clearly no requirement of an entity which claims coverage under Section 80IC (2) (b) (ii) to have in place an agreement with either the Central or State Government or for that matter any local authority.
While Section 80IC (2) (a) does refer to the Central Government, the same is confined to the aspect of the manufactory having been set up pursuant to a scheme notified by that government. However, sub-clause (b) clearly avoids reference to any of those species of authorities. All that sub-clause (b) requires is for the undertaking to be engaged in the manufacture or production of any article or things specified in the Fourteenth Schedule and having commenced operations in the periods prescribed therein and in States of the Union mentioned therein.
This must necessarily be contrasted with what obtains under Section 80IA (4) (i) (b) and where an agreement with the Central or State Government has been recognized as being a precondition for the purposes of claiming benefits under that provision itself. The Tribunal also appears to have clearly overlooked the fact that Rule 18BBB as well as Form 10CCB straddles more than one provision in the Act. As is evident from the title of that rule, it is intended to cater to varied enterprises and eligible businesses as envisaged in Sections 80I, 80IA, 80IB or 80IC. We are of the considered opinion that in the absence of Section 80IC requiring an agreement between the assessee and the Central/State Government or local authority or mandating such an agreement as being a mandatory precondition for claiming benefits, the Tribunal has clearly erred in reading such a requirement in respect of an assessee which may have been claiming benefits under Section 80IC.
Tribunal thereafter has further proceeded to examine the case of the assessee from the stand point of Section 80IA (8) and 80IA (10). This exercise undertaken by it for purposes of discerning abnormal profits and whether the assessee had allegedly shifted profit or expenditure to an eligible business is an issue which was neither canvassed, raised nor urged either before the AO or the CIT (A). It also does not appear to have constituted a ground of appeal that was urged by the Revenue for the consideration of the Tribunal. Decided against revenue.
-
2025 (2) TMI 833
Computation of deduction u/s 80IA - quantum of deduction which the assessee would be entitled to claim u/s 80IA - HELD THAT:- The above appeal filed by the revenue being covered by the decision of this Hon’ble Court in [2025 (2) TMI 766 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] in the assessee’s case has to be dismissed.
Apart from the fact, there is inordinate unexplained delay in filing the appeal [supra]. We noted that the order impugned in this appeal was relied upon and followed in the assessee’s case for the assessment year 2018-19. When the Tribunal passed the said order, the revenue had not preferred any appeal for the assessment year 2016-17 and that has been recorded by the Tribunal in the order impugned in Tribunal had rightly computed the market value of electricity supplied by the captive power plants of the assessee to its industrial units after comparing it with the rate of power available in the open market, i.e., the price charged by the State Electricity Board while supplying electricity to the industrial consumers.
Therefore, this is also another ground to dismiss the revenue’s appeal.
-
2025 (2) TMI 832
Offence punishable u/s 276B - Liability of the Directors in-charge for offence is shown to have been committed by the Company - respondent was being treated as the Principal Officer of the Company - Whether there are sufficient materials to frame the charge against the accused No. 1 Company for the offence punishable under section 276B of the Act? - accused No. 2 to 6 shown that they are not in charge of day to day affairs of accused No. 1 Company
HELD THAT:- No such independent and separate notice is necessary when in the show cause notice, it was stated that Directors were to be considered. In the case on hand, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that before launching of the prosecution, a notice was issued on 30.07.2024 and counsel of the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court the reply given by the Company wherein it also categorically acknowledged while giving reply that with reference to the above facts and subject with regard to the launching of prosecution when notice was issued under Section 276B r/w Section 278B of the Act that notice was given to the Company and Principal Officers of the Company and have received notices from the complainant and also categorically mentioned that notice was acknowledged with regard to the proposal to launching of prosecution against the Principal Officers of the Company for delaying remittance of TDS and in the reply also, they admitted reasons for delay in remittance of the amount.
When such material is available before this Court and when specific averment is made in the complaint itself that this respondent and others are in the helm of affairs of the Company and they are the Directors, they are the Principal Officers and notices were also given and marked documents - Exs.P5 to P9 and the very contention that no notice was served and they are not in charge of the affairs of the Company, the Trial Court committed an error in making such an observation that no notice was served as contemplated under Section 2 (35) of the Act and also that they have not been in charge of the Company is nothing but perversity and it requires interference by this Court.
The impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and also Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction when the order suffers from illegality and incorrectness and the trial Court committed an error in coming to such a conclusion that this respondent and others were not in charge of the affairs of the Company when specific allegation is made in the complaint itself for making an averment and even the same has been extracted by the Trial Court in paragraph No. 11 of the impugned order in the beginning itself with regard to the specific averments made in the complaint and also marking of documents Exs.P5 to P9, the attested copies of the notices issued under Section 2 (35) of the Act and the defence cannot be raised at the time of considering the discharge application. Only the Court has to look into the material available on record and the same is a matter of trial.
The Court has to look into the principles laid down in the case of Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. [2007 (3) TMI 205 - SUPREME COURT] particularly referring the provisions of Sections 276B and 278B of the Act discussed in paragraph Nos.13, 14, 15, 26 and 28 and also comes to the conclusion that there is no need of issuance of independent and separate notice if in the show cause notice it was stated that Directors were to be considered as Principal Officers under the Act.
Order - The impugned order dated 01.10.2019 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru in so far as it relates to discharging accused No. 2 is set aside and Trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law.
-
2025 (2) TMI 831
Addition u/s.68 - funds received by assessee from SPPL have been added by doubting the genuineness of the transaction - HELD THAT:- Assessee has duly explained the nature of transaction and has also gone to the extent of explaining the source of source with corroborative documentary evidence including assessment order passed in the case of SPPL whereby Department accepted the share application money received by SPPL from its promoter, i.e., the Malaysian company.
In respect of part of funds as received in the subsequent year, assessee has explained it by way of bank reconciliation statement duly corroborated by entries in the bank statement, both of the assessee and that of SPPL. All the stated documentary evidences are placed on record in the paper book.
As SPPL itself assessed by the Department for the transaction having a direct bearing on the addition made in the hands of the assessee, we unhesitatingly, delete the addition in the hands of assessee u/s.68. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 830
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - estimation of income on bogus purchases - AO added the entire bogus purchases whereas the Tribunal restricted the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases being the profit element imbibed in such bogus purchases
HELD THAT:- The undisputed fact is that the additions were made on account of bogus purchases and the quarrel travelled up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal restricted the quantum addition at 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
No merit in the contention of the ld. Counsel that the profit has been estimated and the penalty has been levied on estimated profit. Facts on record show that there were bogus purchases and only the profit element has been added which means that the assessee has concealed the income to this extent in the garb of purchases which turned out to be bogus.
No hesitation in confirming the penalty so levied u/s 271(1)(c) - Decided against assessee.
-
2025 (2) TMI 829
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 in the name of Partnership Firm as not in existence - penny stocks treated as undisclosed income u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- The law is well-settled in this regard. The re-assessment notice u/s 148 of the Act in the name of a non-existing entity despite unequivocal knowledge of its non-existence, is clearly vitiated and rendered nonest in law. The notice issued on a non-existent firm is not a mere technical glitch. The notice issued under s. 148 to the non-existent firm which was a distinct taxable entity is thus liable to be quashed at the threshold without anything more.
This view is supported by the judgement rendered in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd [2019 (7) TMI 1449 - SUPREME COURT], Uber India Systems (P.) Ltd. [2024 (10) TMI 1001 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Alok Knit Exports Ltd [2021 (8) TMI 777 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT].
Reasons for re-opening were not provided to the assessee - Noticeably, in the instant case, reasons are neither provided at the time of initiation of proceedings nor such reasons have been spelt out in the re-assessment order. Apparently, the vested right of the assessee to file objection to any unlawful assumption of jurisdiction has been completely done away causing serious prejudice to the assessee and embroiled him in protracted litigation.
For assumption of lawful jurisdiction under the Act, all jurisdictional conditions and procedural requirements need to be satisfied. In the absence of copy of reasons made available in spite of specific request, presumption would arise adverse to the Revenue on compliance of pre-requisites of s.147 & 151 of the Act. The re-assessment order framed under s. 147/143(3) is thus, liable to be quashed as rightly contended on behalf of the assessee.
Addition u/s 68 - The assessee has actually incurred business losses on the transactions in Banas Finance Ltd., a stock which is otherwise duly listed on the platform of the exchanges and transactions registered have been routed through SEBI registered stock brokers. The loss claimed has actually resulted in an outgo and depletion of funds. Hence the business loss by no stretch of imagination could fall within the expression ‘unexplained cash credits’. The outgo/loss has resulted in a debit transaction rather than credit transaction. Hence, the additions made under s. 68 is impermissible in law at the threshold. We find apparent rationally in the plea of the assessee for inapplicability of s. 68 of the Act to deny a business loss claimed to have occurred to the assessee. The assessee thus succeeds on this aspect as well.
Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 828
Denial of Foreign Tax Credit claimed under article 25(2)(a) of the India USA DTAA r.w.s. 90 of the I.T. Act - late filing of Form 67 - assessee filed revised return and claimed Foreign Tax Credit and also filed Form 67 - HELD THAT:- Identical issue came up in the case of Neha Kapoor [2023 (9) TMI 31 - ITAT DELHI] wherein the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow credit of Foreign Tax Credit as held Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide for disallowance of FTC in case of delay in filing Form No.67; (ii) filing of Form No.67 is not mandatory but a directory requirement and (iii) DTAA overrides the provisions of the Act and the Rules cannot be contrary to the Act. Thus we hereby direct the AO to allow the impugned credit of FTC to the assessee. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (2) TMI 827
Revision order u/s 263 on a deceased person - HELD THAT:- Following the judgment in the case of Dharamraj [2022 (1) TMI 844 - DELHI HIGH COURT] notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on a dead person was held to be null and void and all consequent proceedings/orders, including the assessment order and the subsequent notices are equally tented and liable to be set aside.
Similar view has been taken in the case of Mrs. Sripathi Subbaraya Manohara L/H Late Sripathi Subbaraya Gupta [2021 (7) TMI 695 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein the High Court quashed the assessment and penalty orders passed on the deceased person.
Since in the case on hand an order u/s 263 was passed by the Pr. CIT on the assessee who deceased on 28.03.2020 such an order is null and void and the same is hereby quashed. Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 826
Addition u/s 68 - treating agricultural income as unexplained income of the assessee - During the course of assessment proceedings, details of agricultural income were not filed - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) while confirming the additions, has observed that the assessee has not been able to clarify as to how the agricultural operations were claimed to have been carried out on commercial land. Before us also, the assessee could not be able to justify whether the agricultural income earned, were from the agricultural land and no commercial land was used for the same.
Moreover, Form J submitted contained the name of the Director of the assessee company. All these facts need proper verification. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this issue is set aside to the file of the AO for making proper verification of the fact whether agricultural income is declared from the agricultural purposes carried out by the assessee on agricultural land or any commercial land is involved. The AO is further directed to verify whether Form J issued in the name of Director are related to the sale of agriculture produce by the assessee or not. The AO is also directed to allow proper opportunity and assessee is directed to make proper compliance of the notice issued by the AO.
Addition on account of gain from the compulsory acquisition of land by holding the same as unexplained income of the assessee - assessee is not entitled for exemption on the compensation received of the said land acquired by NHAI. He further observed that the assessee is not entitled for exemption u/s 10(37) of the Act as the same is not available to companies as well as in case of non-agricultural land - HELD THAT:- As per amended sub-section 3 of section 105, the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with First schedule shall apply to all cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in Fourth schedule of the said Act. Since NHAI Act is already included in Fourth schedule of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 thus exemption as provided in section 96 of the said act is available in cases where land is compulsory acquired by under NHAI Act for public purposes and the precondition of issue of notification to this effect has already been withdrawn through amendment in sub-section (3) of section 105 of the said Act.
CBDT vide circular No. 36 of 2016 dated 25.10.2016 after considering the exemption provided u/s 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 towards the compensation award under this Act as tax free under the Income Tax Act, 1961 clarified that award granted under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 both for agricultural and non-agricultural land is tax free. Therefore, the compensation received by the assessee on compulsory acquisition of its land, both commercial and agricultural land, by NHAI is eligible for exemption from income tax as per the provisions of section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 which is a special Act and prevail over the Income Tax Act, 1961. This view gets support from the judgement of V.S. Promotors Ltd.[2023 (2) TMI 1388 - ITAT LUCKNOW]
Since the land owned by the assessee were acquired by NHAI as compulsory acquisition u/s 3A of NHAI Act, 1956 and compensation was awarded by the competent authorities. The entire amount compensation so awarded was received by the assessee during the FY 2015-16 relevant to the assessment year under appeal, which is after the amendment made in section 105(3) w.e.f. 01.01.2015. Therefore, for claiming the exemption of the compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 awarded by NHAI, there is no requirement of issue of any notification. Moreover, we have already expressed the view that exemption from the income tax on the compensation received upon compulsory acquisition of land by NHAI is available as per section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, therefore, addition made by disallowing the exemptions available to assessee is directed to be deleted. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (2) TMI 825
Revision u/s 263 - Short Term and Long Term Capital Gains earned during the year - HELD THAT:- Assessee produced the details of share trading statement of broker, Demat statement with re-conciliation, sale/purchase bills of share trading and financial ledger of the broker and after going through those documents the AO made no addition.
In the present case, the AO raised specific query on the issue of ‘Short Term and Long Term Capital Gains' earned during the year’ and the Assessee has produced the cogent documents and after verifying the documents, the A.O. came to a conclusion that no addition requires to be made and while doing so, AO has also called for books of accounts and examined on test check basis to examine the genuineness of the transaction.
PCIT committed error in invoking the provision of Section 263 accordingly, findings merits in the Grounds of appeal of the Assessee, we hereby quash the order impugned passed by the PCIT. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (2) TMI 824
Denial of deduction u/s. 80P - return of income was filed belatedly - HELD THAT:- CBDT vide instruction dated 27.02.2019 issued u/s. 119(2)(b) of the Act directed that all the return of income and reports of audit which are filed till 02.08.2019 are deemed to have been filed by 31.10.2018 in case of tax payers of Kerala following the devastating floods in the month of August, 2018.
Therefore return of income cannot be considered as belatedly filed. Therefore, the matter may be set aside to the AO to pass appropriate order rectifying the order passed u/s. 154 of the Act.
DR did not express any objection to the above submission.
We, remit the matter back to the file of the CPC to amend the rectification considering the instruction issued by the CBDT treating all the returns of income filed by 02.08.2014 were treated as filed by 31.10.2018. Appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 823
Disallowance u/s 40A(3) - amount paid in cash to the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) towards electricity charges - HELD THAT:- The provisions of section 40A(3) is not absolute. Provisions of section 40 A(3) cannot be read in isolation but should be read with the provisions of rule 6DD of the I.T. Rules.
Provisions of rule 6DD enumerates certain exceptions for invoking provisions of section 40A(3). Clause (b) of rule 6DD provides that where the payment is made to the government no disallowance u/s. 40A(3) is to be made.
In the present case, the payment is made to state government undertaking, i.e. KSEB, which is considered to be a ‘state’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the cash payment made to the state government undertaking cannot be disallowed. See SRC Aviation P. Ltd. [2012 (9) TMI 296 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Arvind Mills Ltd. [2014 (11) TMI 591 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]
Since the payment in question falls under the exceptions enumerated under rule 6DD, we delete the addition. Assessee appeal allowed.
............
|
9911796707
