|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1445 Records
-
2024 (3) TMI 1406
Revenue has processed the paper returns filed by Petitioner u/s 143(1) - HELD THAT:- Petitioner may have certain grievances as regards the order passed by the AO and for that will take such steps as advised in accordance with law including filing an appeal. Petitioner states, keeping open the rights and contentions of the parties, Petitions may be disposed with liberty to take such steps as advised in accordance with law.
We need to note that in the order [2022 (12) TMI 1555 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] leave to file paper returns was granted subject to final outcome in the Petitions. Since the paper returns have been processed, in our view, nothing will remain in these Petitions.
Petitions are disposed accordingly with the liberty as prayed for.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1405
Revenue has processed the paper returns filed by Petitioner u/s 143(1) - Petitioner keeping open the rights and contentions of the parties, Petitions may be disposed with liberty to take such steps as advised in accordance with law.
HELD THAT:- We need to note that in the order [2022 (3) TMI 1627 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] leave to file paper returns was granted subject to final outcome in the Petitions. Since the paper returns have been processed, in our view, nothing will remain in these Petitions.
Petitions are disposed accordingly with the liberty as prayed for.
We clarify that we have not made any observation on the merits of the matter.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1404
Denial of benefit of lower taxation rate u/s 115BAA - failure of the assessee to file Form No. 10IC electronically before the due date for filing the return of income u/s 139(1) - case of the assessee is that Form 10IC could not be uploaded on ITBA portal due to technical glitch and it was the first year of availing such benefit - HELD THAT:- In Gujarat Paguthan Energy Corporation (P) Ltd. [2014 (7) TMI 345 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] while considering the eligibility of deduction of Section 80-IA of the Act, wherein the assessee is required to furnish audit report before due date of filing return of income, and such audit report was filed during assessment proceedings, the assessee was held to be eligible for deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act.
In Web Commerce (India) (P) Ltd.[2008 (12) TMI 13 - HIGH DELHI COURT] also held that once audit report is filed before framing of assessment, the provisions of Section 80-IA (7) would be complied as furnishing of such report at the time of filing of return is directory in nature and not mandatory.
It is settled principles under law that appeal is a continuation of assessment proceedings and the ld. CIT(A) has co-terminus power as of AO, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was required to consider the report in Form 10-IC.
Ground of appeal raised by the assessee is restored back to the file of assessing officer to consider the report in Form-10IC and allow relief to the assessee, if the assessee fulfil all other requisite condition as per law. Assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1403
Addition of bad debt of 25% of the margin money to NSEL - assessee is not in the business of banking or money lending and assessee was not a broker of NSEL - HELD THAT:- This issue stands covered by the order of U.K. Paints India Ltd. [2020 (12) TMI 440 - ITAT DELHI] held that the loss will have to be allowable at loss incidental to the business while computing the income u/s 28. Since, it is not an expenditure, the provisions u/s 30 to 37 are not attracted in this case. We hold that loss must be during the course or of incidental to business.
It is the nexus with the business which is more relevant to claim the loss (CIT Vs Textool Co. Ltd. [1981 (9) TMI 92 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]). The loss must have a direct and proximate nexus with the business operations and the loss is incidental to it, then such loss is deductible as, without business operations, no profit can be earned. If profit is earned in such an endeavour it is to be taxed and if loss is earned it is to be allowed.
Without going into the grammatical issue of debt or bad debts or receivables, since the facts clearly prove that the assessee has incurred loss by the way of his business with M/s Philip Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. and the loss has been in the current year itself, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, such loss incurred in such transaction with regard to NSEL is allowable
Addition u/s 14A - procedural requirements and the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer (AO) with the assessee's claims - HELD THAT:- As decided in U.K. Paints India Ltd. [2020 (12) TMI 440 - ITAT DELHI] AO failed to follow the procedural aspects of invocation of Section 14A(2) which is a sine qua non for re-computation of the disallowance. There cannot be any thing like deemed satisfaction or employed dissatisfaction while invoking the provisions of Section 14(2). There is no mention by the Assessing Officer as to how the AO is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee.
AO who however failed to draw any dissatisfaction as to how the voluntarily disallowance was unreasonable and non-satisfactory with regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee. We hereby hold that the disallowance which has been made in contravention with the prescribed mode, methodology and steps for calculation envisaged u/s 14A(2) is liable to be deleted.
Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1402
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) - expenditure attributable to exempt dividend income - interest on loans raised by erstwhile GEB for the purpose of disallowance - HELD THAT:- As in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2015-16 [2022 (12) TMI 1495 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] matter is set aside to the file of Assessing Officer to examine the facts and figures of the case in the light of our observations made above in order to arrive at a final conclusion as to whether disallowance u/s 14A is to be made and if so, then the amount thereof which in no case should exceed the exempted income earned by assessee during the year under appeal. It is needless to mention that ld. Assessing Officer shall allow reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee before adjudicating the same. These grounds allowed for statistical purposes.
Treatment of interest income from staff loans and advances, interest income from other loans and advances and miscellaneous income - HELD THAT:- Though interest on other loans and advances has been contended as was of business exigencies on the assessee, it has not been able to demonstrate by the assessee that the nature of this income is from business activities particularly when separate head for interest income in the return of income has been shown which is to be included in other income. Neither the miscellaneous income has been able to be shown from routine business activities of the assessee.
Asessee failed to demonstrate that the income which is not revenue from operations as required to be treated in the other heads which includes income from other sources and capital gain.
Impugned amount on account of interest income from other loans and advances and miscellaneous income are rightly been treated as income from other sources. We, therefore, quash the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in granting relief to the assessee and confirm the order passed by the AO. Hence, this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is allowed.
Adjustment made to the Book Profit computed u/s 115JB on account of disallowance u/s 14A - As relying on the case for A.Y. 2010-11 [2020 (3) TMI 232 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] ground raised by the Revenue to include the disallowance u/s. 14A for the purpose of computation of book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act is hereby deleted.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1401
Seeking grant of Regular bail - role attributed to the petitioner by the prosecution is that he was a middleman in the said conspiracy and the only evidence which has been collected by the prosecution against the present petitioner is the CDR of the petitioner which allegedly connects him to the co-accused - HELD THAT:- The order granting regular bail to the Ramesh Kakkar, who is alleged to be the mastermind of the conspiracy, has attained finality, whereas, it is the prosecution's own case that the petitioner has only acted as an intermediary to carry out the conspiracy. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is the alleged assailant/shooter. The role ascribed to the petitioner being lesser than that of Ramesh Kakkar, he is entitled to the benefit of parity. It also cannot be ignored that co-accused Ram Phool has also been enlarged on regular bail and it is the prosecution's version that Ram Phool, as well as, the petitioner have acted as intermediaries to carry out the conspiracy.
It is also to be noticed that the petitioner has been enlarged on interim bail number of times and the said concession has not been misused by the petitioner. Further, all public witnesses have already been examined and only official witnesses are left to be examined. Therefore, there is no possibility of the petitioner influencing the public witnesses in the event he is enlarged on bail - In respect of the antecedents of the petitioner, to be noted that the petitioner has been accused of committing an offence under Sections 482/411/34 IPC registered under at Police Station Saket, suffice it to note that the same pertains to the year 2013 and it is also not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has been recently involved in any other offence.
The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2020 (1) TMI 1528 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the fact that multiple criminal charges are still pending against the accused by itself cannot be a ground to deny bail.
Conclusion - This Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to grant of regular bail pending trial. Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed.
Bail application allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1400
Late payment of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI - intimation u/s 143(1) - amount of Employees’ Contribution to PF & ESI paid by the assessee before the due date as prescribed u/s 139(1) cannot be allowed as a deduction u/s 43B - HELD THAT:- We find the issue now stands decided against the assessee by the decision of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd [2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT] wherein as held that if the Employees’ contribution to PF & ESI are not deposited before the statutory due dates mentioned in the respective Act, the same cannot be allowed as a deduction.
Since admittedly, the assessee, in the instant case, has not deposited the Employees’ Contribution to PF & ESI before the statutory due dates but has deposited the same before the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) for filing of the return of income, therefore, the learned CIT (A) NFAC was fully justified in upholding the addition/disallowance made by the CPC in the intimation u/s 143(1). Decided against assessee.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1399
Penalty u/s 271AAB - additional income surrendered by assessee - as argued AO does not refer any incriminating material and the AO has merely assessed the surrendered income already offered by assessee in the return of income - HELD THAT:- Mere surrender by assessee during search does not constitute an incriminating material. It is further held that penalty u/s 271AAB is imposable only if there is ‘undisclosed income’ in the form of (i) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search, or (ii) entry of an expense recorded in the books of account or documents maintained in the normal course which is found to be false.
AO has himself acknowledged that there was nothing incriminating in seized-material. When it is so, there is nothing of the nature (i) or (ii) as mentioned in the definition of “Undisclosed Income” prescribed in clause (c) of the Explanation to Section 271AAB.
Faced with this situation, we have no hesitation in accepting assessee’s claim that the penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) was not imposable in the light of judicial decisions. We therefore allow the grounds raised by assessees and delete the penalties imposed by AO in all cases. The assessees succeed in these appeals.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1398
Levy of Merchant Overtime Fee - carrying out examination and supervision of loading of export goods at the factory of the manufacturer during office hours on working days the Central Excise Officers - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the place of working/ supervision was at the factory of the appellant and it is also not in dispute that supervision was made by the Range Central Excise Officer in whose territory the factory of the appellant is located. Chapter 13 of the C.B.E. & C.’s Customs Manuals deals with “Merchant Overtime Fee” wherein it is provided that if services are rendered by the Custom Officer at a place which is not his normal place of work or place beyond the custom area, overtime is levied even during the normal working hours.
In the facts of the case, none of the condition for levy of the MOT charges is satisfied and accordingly, the appeal is allowed by answering the questions in negative and in favour of the appellant to the effect that the appellant would not be liable to pay Merchant Overtime Charges for carrying out examination and supervision of loading of export goods at the factory premises of the manufacturer during the office hours on working day by the Central Excise Officers contrary to the instruction of the Central Board of Excise and Customs.
Appeal allowed - decided in favour of appellant.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1397
Declination of an application of petitioner for stay of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - application was moved for stay of proceedings in terms of Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - nature of proceedings u/s 138 of NI Act - penal in nature or not - HELD THAT:- It is quite evident that petitioners are facing proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act being Managing Director & Director, respectively of the Company and both were stated to be ‘incharge of’ and ‘responsible’ to the Company i.e. Ms. Kudos Chemie Pvt. Ltd. for the conduct of its business - there remains no doubt that Signatories/Directors cannot escape their penal liability under Section 138/141 of the NI Act.
A fortiori, Section 96 of the IBC, inter alia, envisages that during the interim moratorium period, any legal action or proceeding pending in respect of ‘any debt’ shall be deemed to have been stayed. Since, proceedings in the present case under the NI Act are not in respect of any debt; rather penal in nature and can invite imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or fine which may extend to twice the cheque amount or with both.
It cannot be countenanced that continuation of the proceedings under NI Act, against both the petitioners being Managing Director/Director of the company, deserve to be stayed or that Section 96 of the IBC would be treated as a bar to that effect, in any manner.
The complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is pending for the last 09 years; Hon’ble the Supreme Court has repeatedly issued directions to expedite the proceedings under the NI Act. In the case in hand, notice of accusation was issued way back on 25.05.2016; cross-examination of the complainant was conducted on 04.06.2018, but the petitioners are delaying the proceedings on one pretext or the other. In such a scenario, this Court is of the considered opinion that present petition is complete misuse of the process of Court; hence, entertaining such a petition would not be in the interest of justice; rather it shall frustrate the same.
Conclusion - Section 138 proceedings are penal and can continue independently of insolvency proceedings. Directors cannot evade liability under Section 138 due to the company's insolvency.
Petition dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1395
Recovery of Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to the supplier's failure to file GSTR-3B returns - demand notice was filed within the permissible time limit under Section 107 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 or not - condonation of delay of 2 months and 21 days in filing appeal - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, though the petitioner has submitted his reply dated 17.05.2023 to the show cause notice in which the date was mentioned as 18.05.2023 and the petitioner was not aware of the order passed by the adjudication authority on 02.08.2023 and a DRC-07 notice on 03.08.2023. The petitioner was under the bona fide belief that the 1st respondent is satisfied with the reply dated 17.05.2023 and the proceedings are kept in abeyance. Only after the receipt of oral communication with regard to the recovery by the department the petitioner came to know about the proceedings of the 1st respondent.
This Court is of the considered view that the delay of 2 months and 21 days is condoned on condition that the petitioner shall pay 15% of the disputed tax on or before 25.03.2024 and on payment of the same, the petitioner may prefer the appeal before the 1st respondent / The Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST – Appeal, Chennai, within a period of two weeks thereof.
Conclusion - The delay of 2 months and 21 days is condoned on condition that the petitioner shall pay 15% of the disputed tax on or before 25.03.2024.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1394
Disallowance on account of reversal of Provisions towards bad debts - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2023 (7) TMI 1150 - ITAT DELHI] Provision was created in the earlier year and it was written back in that year is not in dispute. CIT(A) has admitted that the issue in hand is a case of reversal of provision of which income has already been offered in the earlier year. Therefore, we fail to understand why the addition has been sustained by the CIT(A).
Disallowance of Traffic Challans - HELD THAT:- The very same issue in hand has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-11 [2023 (6) TMI 393 - ITAT DELHI] as relying on Bharat C Gandhi [2011 (3) TMI 278 - ITAT, MUMBAI] held wherein payment of compounding fee for violation of provision under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules thereunder has held that such expenditure is allowable as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act.
As in this case assessee has not been asked to produce the Traffic Challans before making the addition, with a view to render substantial justice, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of the A.O. to verify the documents produced by the Assessee and decide the issue afresh.
Disallowance on account of Deposit from customers - HELD THAT:- Similar issue regarding disallowance of deposit from customers has been considered by the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case in Assessment Year 2010-11 [2023 (6) TMI 393 - ITAT DELHI] held that onus is on the revenue to bring on record tangible evidence to show that liability has ceased to exist, especially when it is continued to be shown in the books of accounts of the assessee.
Thus, considering from all possible angles, neither provisions of section 41(1) of the Act apply [Assessing Officer fails] nor provisions of section 41(2) and 43(6) of the Act [CITA fails]. This ground by the assessee is allowed.
Addition on account of inventory loss and leakages - HELD THAT:- The similar issue in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2010-11 [2023 (7) TMI 1150 - ITAT DELHI] and 2017-18 [2023 (9) TMI 1635 - ITAT DELHI] has been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue as held write off of inventory is based on actual loss and not on estimation. Therefore, in our considered view, the ld. CIT(A) was correct in allowing the same as business expenditure.
Disallowance of Repair & Maintenance (Others) - HELD THAT:- Identical issue came for consideration by the Tribunal in Assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2010-11 [2023 (7) TMI 1150 - ITAT DELHI] held that difference of 18% between 53% and 38% has no logic without pointing out any error or defect in the books of account which are audited and no adverse inference has been pointed out by the auditors.
Allowability of Staff Welfare Expenses - CIT(A) while deleting the disallowance found that the A.O. made the ad-hoc disallowance in a routine manner without giving any logic reason and without rejecting the books of accounts - HELD THAT:- We find no error or infirmity in the said finding and the conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A) and find no merit in the Ground No. 3 of the order of the CIT(A) as the disallowance has been made without pointing any deficiency in the books of accounts of the assessee and the disallowance has been made on ad-hoc basis without rejecting the books of accounts. No such disallowance has been made in the past, thus, we find no merit in the Ground No. 3 of the Revenue.
Delayed payment of PF/ESI - HELD THAT:- As the issue of belated payment of PF/ESI are covered against the Assessee by the Judgment in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd [2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT] we find merit in the Ground of the Revenue.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1393
Disallowance of interest expenses - Interest receipt claim against the interest payment and net income is offered u/s 57 - HELD THAT:- We note that the interest income and expenditure is disputed because the assessee claimed income in other source the AO also not allowed the interest expenses merely on the reason that the assessee has not proved the nexus but when the loans are of earlier year and the money is rotating and not having direct nexus but considering the aspect of the fact the interest income is higher then the interest expenditure the observation of the lower authority in sustaining the addition is purely based on the surmises and conjecture which we not correct.
AO cannot direct the assessee to prove each rotating fund to prove with having direct nexus when interest earned is higher then the interest paid and there is no allegation of diversion of fund, thus, the interest expenditure cannot be denied to the assessee.
We also find from the record that the assessee has in total offered the interest income and claimed the interest payment which is not exceeding the interest received and therefore, even in the assessment order, we find that the interest payment is not disputed by the ld. AO and he has also accepted that assessee has given the loan and advanced as made the investments form various parties. Considering that the aspect of the matter the claim cannot be denied to the assessee and in terms of these observations, the ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed.
Disallowance of other expenses, including depreciation claimed on a car, interest paid on a car loan, and car insurance - HELD THAT:- On being consistent to the findings so recorded and considering the fact that assessee is a partner in four firms and the use of that car for the purpose of the business cannot be denied in the absence of the any adverse finding for the use of the car and the consequential depreciation, interest and insurance cannot be denied thus based on these aspect of the matter ground Nos. 3 and 4 raised by the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1392
Challenge to SCN as also the impugned order - SCN as also the assessment order have not been signed by the 1st respondent either digitally or physically as is otherwise required under Rule 26 of the Central Goods and Services Taxes Rules - HELD THAT:- A reading of Section 160 of the Act makes it very much clear and candid that the safeguards contained therein cannot be made applicable for the contingency in the present case. Section 169 of the Act, which deals with the service of notice, enables the department to make available any decision, order, 4 Summons, Notice or other communication in the common portal. In the guise of the same, the signatures cannot be dispensed with. In the considered opinion of this court, the aforesaid provisions of law would not come to the rescue of the respondent herein, for justifying the impugned action.
Conclusion - An unsigned order is no order in the eyes of law. Merely uploading of the unsigned order, may be by the Authority competent to pass the order, would not cure the defect which goes to the very root of the matter i.e. validity of the order.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1391
Challenge to impugned order, issued without a signature - extension of the time limit for passing orders, as per Notification No. 09/2023-C.T and corresponding GO. Ms. No. 118 - ultra vires to the CGST/TGST Act, 2017 and violative of constitutional provisions - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 29397 of 2023 and stood decided on 10.11.2023 [2023 (12) TMI 156 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], wherein, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court had under similar circumstances held that 'Section 160 of CGST Act 2017 is not attracted. An unsigned order cannot be covered under “any mistake, defect or omission therein” as used in Section 160. The said expression refers to any mistake, defect or omission in an order with respect to assessment, re-assessment; adjudication etc and which shall not be invalid or deemed to be invalid by such reason, if in substance and effect the assessment, re-assessment etc is in conformity with the requirements of the Act or any existing law.'
Conclusion - The impugned order in the instant case quashed since it is an un-signed document which lose its efficacy in the light of requirement of Rule 26 (3) of the CGST Rules 2017 and also under the TGST Act and Rules 2017. The show cause notice as also the impugned order both would not be sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1390
Challenge to order and notice - absence of signatures, either handwritten or digital - contravention of Rule 26(3) of the Central Board of Service Tax Rule 2017, analogous to the Telangana Goods and Services Tax, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Since the order is not pregnant with the signature of the competent authority, the order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Other side did not dispute the factum of non-availability of signature on the notice and order.
The notice dated 15.11.2021 and order dated 29.12.2023 are set aside - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1389
Dishonour of cheque - conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - vicarious liability of Director of the company - HELD THAT:- In a proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act, presumption is in favour of the Holder of the cheque and that such cheque had been issued in discharge of legal debt and/or liability, unless proved otherwise/rebutted by the accused.
In the present case the presumption is clearly in favour of the complainant and the petitioner has not been able to rebut the said presumption under Section 139 N.I. Act. But there is no compliance under Section 141 N.I. Act and as such the proceedings in the present case is clearly not maintainable.
Conclusion - The judgment and order convicting the petitioner were set aside due to non-compliance with Section 141, despite the presumption under Section 139 being in favor of the complainant.
Application disposed off.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1388
Classification of imported goods - 100% Polyester bed cover / Quilt Cover - to be classified under CTH 6304 of the Customs Tariff Act or under CTH 5407? - deliberate mis-declaration of the goods - levy of mandatory penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- In this case, the claim of the respondent is that they have correctly classified the impugned goods as “100% Polyester bed cover / Quilt Cover” having merit classification under CTH 6304 of the Customs Tariff Act. The same issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) , KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. SILPHA FINVEST P. LIMITED [2024 (3) TMI 246 - CESTAT KOLKATA], wherein this Tribunal has examined the issue and observed that 'the impugned goods have been correctly classified by the respondent and the same are not liable for confiscation. We further hold that the respondent is liable to pay duty by classifying the impugned goods under CTH 6304 of the Customs Tariff Act and no penalty is imposable on the respondent. No redemption fine is payable by the respondent.'
As the respondent imported Bed sheets which are having merit classification under CTH 6304 of the Customs Tariff Act, in these circumstances, the charge of suppression of facts is not sustainable against the respondent.
There are no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue - Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1387
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - ITAT not considering the TPO’s findings that the comparables proposed by the assessee are not acceptable as they do not have similar FAR as that of the assessee - HELD THAT:- ITAT found that the comparables selected by the assessee were valid, as they belonged to the same industry and geographical region as those considered by the TPO. The ITAT directed the inclusion of additional comparables, which were also deemed valid for benchmarking royalty payments
The assessee has paid royalty for use of trademark and marketing information /marketing know-how. All the eight comparables listed in the chart in para 16.5 above are from the same geography and same industry and hence are valid comparables to that of the assessee.The inclusion of eight comparables was not questioned before us.
Consequently, we find that the appeal raises no substantial question of law and we see no reason to interfere with the ITAT’s impugned order. The appeal shall thus stand dismissed.
-
2024 (3) TMI 1386
Deduction of an amount credited to PNB Employees’ Pension Fund u/s 43B - when the amount was not payable as per terms and conditions of the pension fund - HELD THAT:- Irrespective of whether the contribution was in excess of the statutory prescription, in our considered opinion as long as the deposit was made to the pension fund, the provision of Section 43B of the Act would stand satisfied. We find no ground to interfere with the view as expressed by the ITAT.
Two questions of law on ITA 540/2023 stands admitted are reproduced hereinbelow:
A. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT as well as the CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of INR 17,70,89,577 made by the AO in respect of losses in Market to Market [“MTM”] derivatives?
B. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT as well as the CIT (A) erred in deleting addition of INR 809,52,69,679/- on account of depreciation/loss on investments?
In order to enable learned counsels for parties to address submissions on the rest of the issues, let the appeal be called again on 15.07.2024.
........
|
9911796707
