|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1182 Records
-
2025 (2) TMI 1102
Recalling of Earlier order - Inadvertent Error in relying upon non-exisitng case laws - HELD THAT:- On suo-moto perusal of the ITAT order it is found that there are certain inadvertent errors in the order, therefore, as per the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act, the above order is recalled in its entirety and fixed for hearing afresh on 19.02.2025. Notice be issued to both parties.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1101
Rejection of application moved for amendment of the Principal Place of Business, under Rule 9 (4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT:- This Court is sanguine that the authorities shall look into the matter in the right earnest. And the appropriate orders, assigning reasons in support thereof, shall be passed, at the earliest.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1100
Challenge to impugned SCN issued u/s 73 of CGST Act, 2017 - certain discrepancies were noticed in the return filed - HELD THAT:- The petition is disposed of. This Court is sanguine that the competent authority shall re-visit the matter in issue in the right earnest, and pass a comprehensive order assigning reasons in support thereof.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1099
Cancellation of GST registration by Sales Tax Officer - appeal dismissed on the ground that the same was barred by limitation - invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- The Judgment passed in Sheikh Mohammad Yousuf’s case [2024 (8) TMI 893 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT] covers the case of the present Petitioner as well, where it was held that 'this petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority for registration of his GST number within a period of seven days from today.'
This Petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the Petitioner to approach the Competent Authority for registration of his GST Number within a period of seven days from today. The Competent Authority shall restore the GST Number of the Petitioner immediately, subject to completion of all requisite formalities. The Petitioner shall file the returns and deposit the taxes as well as penalty, along with interest, within seven days. In the event needful is not done by the Petitioner within the stipulated period of time, this Order shall cease to be in operation.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1098
Overstatement of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - total tax reflected in the order is in excess of ₹ 50,00,000/-Interest and penalty are in addition to the same - HELD THAT:- Impugned proceeding against petitioner for financial year 2019-20 resulting in demand order under annexure-6 are all set aside and quashed.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1097
Challenge to impugned order - Levy of IGST - Ocean Freight - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in this writ petition stands covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mohit Minerals Private Limited [2022 (5) TMI 968 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that 'The IGST Act and the CGST Act define reverse charge and prescribe the entity that is to be taxed for these purposes.The specification of the recipient - in this case the importer - by Notification 10/2017 is only clarificatory. The Government by notification did not specify a taxable person different recipient prescribed in Section 5(3) of the IGST Act for the purpose of reverse charge.'
The present petition is also disposed of in same terms.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1096
Challenge to impugned order - non application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner is ready and willing to pay 10% of the disputed tax and that they may be granted one final opportunity before the adjudicating authority to put forth their objections - HELD THAT:- The petitioner shall deposit 10% of the disputed taxes as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The impugned orders dated 24.08.2024 & 07.12.2024 are set aside - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1095
Claiming Input Tax Credit without payment - Violation of provision of CGST Act - invocation of court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution - HELD THAT:- As is ex facie evident from the record, the petitioner has a private grievance against the third respondent. Even if it were the case of the third respondent having violated the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the only remedy that was available for the petitioner to pursue was to make a complaint before the competent authority.
None of the facts which are alleged would have possibly constituted sufficient ground to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Petition dismissed with costs quantified at INR 50,000/-.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1094
Validity of Proceedings u/s 153C - addition u/s 69A - Reliance on documents seized during the search and seizure operations - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- The impounded documents have been verified by us from the assessment order wherein the name of the assessee is clearly visible. Assessee failed to give any information as to whether the transactions were at all recorded in the books of account. In fact, she did not submit any documentary evidences to buttress her case. CIT(A) has merely relied on certain case laws, but without realising that how the same are applicable in assessee’s case.
CIT(A) failed to perform his statutory function to act judiciously by not correlating the additions made with the corresponding assessment orders of AVC Homes, Saptagiri Builders. He was swayed that there is no exchange of money as submitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee. But here it is beyond comprehension that why cash details are mentioned in the print–out obtained which is stark reality glaring at the face. It is also surprising that there has been no participation by the assessee before the AO to effectively explain the documents in its entirety.
Addition made u/s 69A has been assailed that the circumstances are not applicable. Nevertheless, the same is undisclosed income, which has been rightly added. There is no requirement that the assessee has to sign these documents because they are designed to be hidden and shrouded. Mere mentioning an inapplicable proviso will hardly dislodge the addition and the logic adopted by the learned CIT(A) is palpably erroneous.
Assessee has tried to create a confusion that in view of multiple entities with prefix unique relationship with Unique Realities Builders and Developers is not established. We fail to understand that how such an issue can be raised once the challenge to 153C proceedings is absent. The diametric opposite stand of the assessee is ergo jettisoned. The recalcitrant stand of the assessee before the Assessing Officer further creates doubt that perhaps the assessee is not coming with clean hands. It is worthwhile to note that even before the remand proceedings, the assessee failed to make any submissions to improve his case.
Assessee failed to justify that additions are not sustainable based on impounded documents. More denial of the transaction by raising a cobweb of nebulous assertions without backing up by strong evidence to repudiate the same is unconscionable. Hence we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and inclined to uphold the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. - Decided against assessee.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1093
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Constitutional validity of Rule 36(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax/Assam Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
Maintainability of petition - HELD THAT:- Since a statutory remedy is available to the petitioner to challenge the validity of the order dated 12.02.2024 as well as the order dated 31.03.2023, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), i.e. respondent No.3 and Additional Commissioner, i.e. respondent No.2, respectively, the challenge of the petitioner to the aforesaid orders cannot be entertained in this writ petition and it is confined to examine the question regarding the validity of Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules.
Validity of Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules - Whether Section 43A of the CGST Act has been enforced before enactment of the Finance Act, 2022 with effect from 01.10.2022 whereby Section 43A is omitted? - HELD THAT:- It is to be noticed that in sub-section (2) of Section 1 in the CGST (Amendment) Act, 2018, whereby Section 43A is enacted, it is provided that the provisions of the Amendment Act of 2018 shall come into force on such date the Central Government may, by Notification, in the Official Gazette, appoint. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 1 says that different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act shall be construed as reference to the coming into force of that provision - it is clear that the Central Government in its discretion can appoint different dates for different provisions of the CGST (Amendment) Act, 2018 for their enforcement by issuing Notification in Official Gazette.
Section 43A has never come into operation because the Central Government has never notified any date for its enforcement till it was omitted.
Whether Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules draws its power only from Section 43A or in particular sub-section (4) of Section 43A? - HELD THAT:- Section 16 of the CGST Act and Rule 36 of CGST Rules are in relation to eligibility of a registered person who can avail input tax credit by furnishing required documents, whereas Section 43A of the CGST Act is defining procedure for furnishing returns for availing input tax credit - Rule 36 of CGST Rules is relatable to Section 16 of the CGST Act and as such, sub-rule (4) of Rule 36 of the said Rules is also relatable to Section 16 of the CGST Act only.
Sub-section (1) of Section 164 of the CGST Act enables the Government to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the said Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 164 clarifies that the Central Government may make rules for all or any of the matters which by CGST Act are required to be or may be prescribed without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 164. It means that provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 164 are not restrictive of sub-Section (1) and after careful scrutiny of the CGST Act, there are no doubt that Rule 36 or in particular sub-rule (4) of Rule 36 is framed as per the objects of the CGST Act and falls within the scope of general power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 164 of the said Act.
Rule 36 of CGST Rules and in particular sub-Rule (4) of Rule 36 derives power from Section 16 of the CGST Act as well as from the general powers conferred by the CGST Act.
Another simple reason for not accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that sub-rule (4) of Rule 36 derives power from subsection (4) of Section 43A is that since Section 43A has not been enforced at any point of time till its omission vide Finance Act, 2022, with effect from 01.10.2022, it is impossible to conclude that a rule or sub-rule derives power from a provision which has never been enforced - when a provision of an Act never comes into operation, it cannot be treated as a source of power of a provision of a rule.
Conclusion - Rule 36(4) of the CGST Rules is valid and derives its authority from Section 16 of the CGST Act and the general rule-making powers under Section 164, not from the non-enforced Section 43A.
There are no merit in the challenge of the petitioner to the validity of sub-rule (4) of Rule 36 of CGST Rules - petition dismissed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1092
Challenge to Exhibit-P3 notice - time limitation - seeking for a direction to provisionally return the gold seized - HELD THAT:- The time limit for completing the investigation has been extended in exercise of the power under the proviso to Section 67 of the Act. Hence, the contention of the petitioner based on the limitation prescribed under Section 67 of the GST Act is not legally tenable.
A perusal of Exhibit-P3 notice of confiscation indicates that, on verification of the registers recovered from the petitioner’s shop/residence, it was prima facie observed that he had carried out sale of old gold worth Rs.47.73 Crores, without having any valid GST registration and that majority of the gold were procured from another entity and supplied to another jewellery without the support of any tax invoice/other relevant documents as mandated by the Goods and Services Tax statutes.
The initiation of proceedings under Section 130 cannot prima facie be said to be without any authority. It is for the petitioner to participate in the said proceedings. Based upon the orders to be passed thereon, appropriate proceedings can be initiated.
Conclusion - The initiation of proceedings under Section 130 was not without authority, and the petitioner should participate in those proceedings. The petitioner was granted the option to utilize Section 130(2) of the GST Act for seeking the release of goods during the confiscation proceedings.
Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to have recourse to Section 130 (2) of the GST Act during the pendency of the proceedings, this writ petition is dismissed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1091
Challenge to SCN and the consequential order issued u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - no proper service of SCN - petitioner was unaware of the proceedings until the intimation of the recovery proceeding was uploaded in the portal - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, concededly, the notice that preceded the order of determination under section 73 of the GST Act was posted in the portal of the petitioner in the tab meant for ‘Additional Notices and Orders’. There was yet another tab for ‘Notices and Orders’. Normally, every person will access the tab meant for ‘Notices and Orders’ to check whether any notices have been issued. In the absence of any notices uploaded in the tab for ‘Notices and Orders’, a person may not check the tab for ‘Additional Notices and Orders’, unless there are proper instructions on the same page itself, indicating expressly, the manner in which the portal should be navigated. Of course, while accessing the portal, every taxpayer is bound to peruse every window. However, for all practical purposes, a taxpayer will not read through every user information given in all the windows to comprehend the mode in which the pages should be navigated. In the absence of specific notes or instructions given on the same page meant for ‘Notices and Orders’ or ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ it cannot be assumed that there has been an effective dissemination of information to taxpayers that the first notice regarding determination under section 73 or 74 of the GST Act will be uploaded only in the tab meant for ‘Additional Notices and Orders’.
In the instant case, Ext. P3 and Ext. P4 notices were issued on 03.07.2023 and 16.11.2023, both of which are before the decisions in M/s. Sabari Infra Private Limited [2023 (9) TMI 501 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] as well as that in Anhad Impex [2024 (2) TMI 1070 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. It is therefore evident that the web portal as it now stands is different from what existed earlier. The scheme of arrangement of the portal was confusing and vague earlier, to identify where the notices for determination would be posted.
This Court is satisfied that the petitioner was unaware of the notice and was even not properly served with the notices due to the vagueness of the system. The lack of knowledge of the notice issued to the petitioner is therefore attributable to the respondents. Thus, there was neither any proper service of notice nor was sufficient opportunity granted to the petitioner to contest the matter. Therefore, it is essential that the order of determination dated 06.03.2024 be set aside and the petitioner be granted an opportunity to file response to Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 notices.
Conclusion - The petitioner's lack of awareness of the notices was attributable to the respondents' failure to effectively serve the notices, leading to a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the Court set aside the order of determination and granted the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the notices within 30 days.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1090
Illegal detention of a truck carrying a consignment - Seeking passing of order in Form GST MOV-09 - HELD THAT:- Sub-section (5) under section 129 says, on payment of amount referred in sub-section (1), all proceeding in respect of the notice specified in sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be concluded. Proceeding under sub-section (3) was initiated by the notice, received by petitioner. This happened on detaining his truck. There was calculation of penalty to be paid. It was in the proceeding commenced by the notice. Petitioner paid the penalty. Sub-section (5) came into operation. It is not necessary to adjudicate on whether in spite of payment of the required penalty an order was required to be made under sub-section (3) because on the payment, by operation of sub-section (5), the proceeding was deemed to be concluded.
There are no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1089
Maintainability of Advance ruling application - whether the issuance of a summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act constitutes a "proceeding" under the first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act? - HELD THAT:- While the term ‘any proceedings’ contained in the phrase in proviso to Section 98 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017, viz., “in any proceedings in the case of the applicant under any of the provisions of this Act”, by itself conveys an exhaustive picture, the additional usage of the words ‘under any of the provisions of the Act’, makes it all the more broader and all encompassing. It is opined that the usage of the words ‘any proceeding’ in the proviso to Section 98 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017, will encompass within its fold all the proceedings involving scrutiny, inquiry, investigation, cancellation or suspension of registration, audit, inspection, search and seizure, assessment, adjudication, recovery, etc., as well.
It becomes imperative to note here that the first proviso to Section 98 (2) of the CGST Act, 2017, discusses about “any proceedings in the case of the applicant under any of the provisions of this Act”. On the other hand, Section 83(1) of the Act, ibid, talks about a situation, viz., “Where during the pendency of any proceedings under Section 62 or Section 63 or Section 64 or Section 67 or Section 73 or Section 74, the Commissioner is of the opinion “It is quite clear from the above that the term ‘proceeding’ referred to in Section 83 is restrictive in nature, in as much as it gets related to Sections 62 / 63 / 64 / 67 / 73 / 74 only, whereas the said term referred to in the first proviso to Section 98 (2) applies to any of the provision of this Act. It is further noticed that even in the case of Section 83, the proceedings under Section 62, 63 and 64 all relate to assessment proceedings that precede the issue of any show cause notice. Accordingly, it is opined that the dynamics of the instant case of the appellant is different and distinguishable from the case involving Radha Krishan Industries, and thereby it does not come to their aid.
While the application for advance ruling in the instant case was filed by the applicant online on 30.12.2022, the first summon issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI, Chennai Zonal Unit is dated 30.11.2022 for appearance on 07.12.2022. It is seen that the date of issue of the second summon is 20.12.2022 for appearance on 09.01.2023. It is quite clear from the above, that the initiation of proceedings by way of issue of both the summons that seeks the details/documents in relation to the issue involved in the instant case, precedes the date of filing of advance ruling application by the applicant. Further, the letter dated 19.12.2022 which also precedes the application, of the appellant furnishing the details of fees collected, unambiguously proves the case in point.
An advance ruling is not required to be pronounced once an investigation is initiated against the appellant under the provisions of the CGST Act, or the GST Act of the respective State or Union Territory, involving the same issue on which the query for advance ruling has been raised, and accordingly, the application for advance ruling filed online on 30.12.2022 by the appellant is liable for rejection under the first proviso to Section 98 (2) of the CGST /TNGST Acts, 2017.
Conclusion - The AAR's decision to reject the advance ruling application upheld, due to the ongoing investigation by the DGGI, which constituted a proceeding under the CGST Act.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1088
Maintainability of Advance ruling application - whether the issuance of a summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act constitutes a "proceeding" under the first proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act? - HELD THAT:- It becomes imperative to analyse as to whether the query raised in the application for advance ruling is the same on which the investigation was initiated, and whether the investigation proceedings precedes the application for advance ruling. Accordingly, it is seen that while the application for advance ruling in the instant case was received on 28.06.2022, the first summon issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI, Chennai Zonal Unit is dated 12.04.2022 based on which a statement has been recorded from Dr. S. Ani Grace Kalaimathi, Registrar of Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council on 18.04.2022, wherein the details of charges/fees collected by Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council for the period from 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2022, through their letter in Ref. No.1538/NC/2022 dated 18.04.2022 is seen to have been communicated. Through another statement dated 14.06.2022, the legalities relating to taxability in the instant issue, is seen to have been discussed. Apart from the same, perusal of the Incident Report No. 89/2022 dated 24.06.2022 issued by the DGGI, Chennai Zonal Unit, clearly brings out the fact that the issue relating to non-payment of taxes under GST on the charges/fees collected by the appellant has already been taken up for investigation.
An advance ruling is not required to be pronounced once an investigation is initiated against the appellant under the provisions of the CGST Act, or the GST Act of the respective State or Union Territory, involving the same issue on which the query for advance ruling has been raised, and accordingly, the application for advance ruling dated 28.06.2022 by the appellant is liable for rejection under the first proviso to Section 98 (2) of the CGST / TNGST Acts, 2017.
Conclusion - The rejection of the advance ruling application upheld on the basis that the issue was already subject to an ongoing investigation, which constituted a "proceeding" under the CGST Act.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1087
Tax deductions obligations and the auctioning process of properties - obligation of the High-Powered Sale Committee (HPSC) to deduct tax at source on interest accruing on deposits in Fixed Deposit and Savings Bank Accounts u/s 194
HELD THAT:- As informed by learned counsel for the parties that the HPSC has been able to meet on 13 occasions in almost 7 months. We find that this has led to creation of an anomalous situation. We say so for the reason that we have fixed the honorarium of the Member Secretary-cum-Nodal Officer of the Committee, who is a whole-time officer, at Rs.7,00,000/- per month (instead of Rs.75,000/- per sitting day). However, the Chairperson and other member of the Committee continue to draw honorarium of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- per sitting date. Since there have not been many sittings, it is well understood that their honorarium is far less than that of the Member Secretary.
Taking into consideration all the attending circumstances, we deem it appropriate to modify paragraph 12(i) and 12 (ii) of our judgment [2024 (7) TMI 935 - SUPREME COURT] and consequently to direct that the Chairperson of the HPSC shall be entitled to a lump-sum honorarium of Rs.13,00,000/- per month w.e.f. February, 2025, besides the travelling, boarding and other miscellaneous expenses as may be incurred in discharging the assigned responsibilities. Similarly, learned Member, who is a former Judge of the High Court, shall be entitled to a lump-sum honorarium of Rs.10,00,000/- per month, in addition to travelling, boarding and other miscellaneous expenses as may be incurred in discharging the assigned responsibilities.
We request the HPSC to evolve some more measures to expedite the process so that the actual auctioning can commence giving a ray of hope to the investors for the refund of their amount.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1086
Recovery of more than 20% of the tax demand from the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- Respondents cannot take the advantage of their own delay in disposing the stay application. The effect of adjustment of refund for assessment year 2022-2023 while processing the return on 6 October 2022 would be that the Petitioner has made a payment of Rs.13,63,340/- against the demand for assessment year 2015-2016 and the said amount of Rs. 13,63,340/- is in excess of 20% of the demand which the Respondents have directed the Petitioner to pay vide order dated 17 April 2024.
When this was pointed out even before the stay order was passed by the Petitioner vide letter dated 14 November 2023, the Respondents ought to have refunded the said amount of Rs. 6,05,030/- either on the Petitioner making application dated 14 November 2023 or at least while passing the stay order on 17 April 2024. Non consideration of this adjustment while arriving at the 20% outstanding demand for assessment year 2015-2016 is unjustified moreso in the present case when the assessee himself voluntarily made a payment of 20% much before filing of the stay application for assessment year 2015-2016.
Provision of Section 250 (6A) of the Act which states that every appeal filed before the first appellate authority where it is possible may be heard and decided within a period of one year from the end of the financial year in which such appeal is filed. This provision was introduced with effect from 1 June 1999 and although it is a directory provision, in the absence of any justifiable reason for not disposing the appeal filed before the CIT (A) for a period of more than six years same would run contrary to the objective for which Section 250 (6A) has been introduced.
ORDE :- Respondent to refund sum of Rs. 6,05,030/- being excess adjustment made against the demand for assessment year 2015-2016 within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of the present order.
Petitioner to make an application to the first appellate authority for taking up his appeal for hearing and if such an application is made, the Commissioner (Appeal) would hear and decide the appeal keeping in mind the provisions of Section 250 (6A) of the Act.
The concerned Commissioner (Appeal) to dispose the Petitioner’s appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably by 31 May 2025.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1085
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - change of opinion - reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment pertaining to exemption u/s 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act for sale of the agricultural land beyond 8 Kms from the Municipal Limit - HELD THAT:- Issue with regard to exemption as claimed by the assessee relying upon the provision of section 2(14)(iii)(b) has already been considered by the AO and the reference was also made to the higher authorities u/s 144A for opinion and considering the order passed under section 144A of the Act. AO did not make any addition while passing assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act.
In view of the undisputed facts, merely by recording the same reasons on verification of records that the assessee had sold the agricultural land claiming exempt income on the ground that such land was beyond 8 Kms from the municipal limit, cannot be a ground to reopen as it would amount to a mere change of opinio
As in case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] held Assessing Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on mere change of opinion.
Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1084
Addition u/s 69A - assessee during the demonetization period deposited cash out of cash balance maintained by him in the regular course - HELD THAT:- The assessee during the demonetization period deposited ₹ 11 lakh on 15/12/2016 out of cash balance maintained by him in the regular course, as per statement of affairs and details are maintained by him in his own handwriting.
Entire cash deposit was withdrawal from bank which could be seen from the bank account and statement of affairs already furnished by the assessee and are available on record from the respective financial year 2011–12 to 2016–17.
As stated by AR that the members of the HUF are regularly assessed to tax on their separate individual income since last many years prior to the year 1998-99. The copies of Bank accounts in support of withdrawals, copies of Balance Sheet and Capital Account maintained by the late Rameshkumar then Karta in his own Hand writing were also furnished during the course of assessment proceedings and are placed on record. CIT(A) was not justified in making addition
Total addition made by AO depending upon the past savings and keeping in view the old age of the then Karta of Late Shri Rameshkumar Parasdas, HUF and balance 50%of the total addition is added as business income only. Thus, the assessee gets part relief of 50%.
-
2025 (2) TMI 1083
Addition u/s 56(2)(x) - difference between the DVO’s valuation and the set forth value - DR contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the allotment letter as an agreement for sale, and that, accordingly, the value should not be deemed as at the financial year 2009-10 - scope of amendment to section 56(2)(x) of the Act brought in Finance Act, 2020 of increasing tolerance limit from 5% to 10% with effect from 01/04/2021 under section 56(2)(X)(b)(B).
HELD THAT:- With respect to Unit No. 103, the incremental difference exceeds 10%, i.e. 10.01%. The Ld. AR contended that any excess over 10% should be added
We hold that the provision of section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) has retrospective effect and is applicable to the impugned assessment year. Accordingly, we uphold the view adopted by the Ld. CIT(A) in reducing the addition under section 56(2)(x).
With respect to section 56(2)(x)(b)(B), we remit the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for allowing the assessee the incremental differences as per the said Act for the alleged properties. In the case of Unit No. 103, the excess over 10% shall be considered for addition. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
........
|
9911796707
