|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 1644 Records
-
2025 (4) TMI 1384
Belated filling of appeal before CIT(Appeals) - petitioner had filed an appeal in Form No.35 manually - HELD THAT:- As petitioner had filed the appeal within the extended time on 15.06.2016 as per Circular No. 20/2016 dated 26.05.2016, the appeal could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay.
The impugned order passed by CIT(Appeals) is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to CIT(Appeals) to decide the same on merits in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1383
Direction to transfer the amount to the account of the Petitioner or the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner/1st Respondent who receive the amount to deposit the said amount in GST account through form GST DRC-03 - HELD THAT:- The Applicant (Org. Respondent No. 2) has addressed letters to the concerned Pay & Accounts Officer (PAOs) and E-PAOs seeking bank account details. In response thereto, the PAOs and E-PAOs communicated their inability to get the GST amount transferred to any designated Bank Account because collection of GST amount is only through generation of challan in the common portal and cannot be deposited in any account maintained by the Government Departments other than GST Authorities.
Prima facie, the prayer of the Applicant to direct the Registry to transfer the amount of Rs. 38,94,868/- to the account of the Petitioner- Wellwisher Properties is satisfied, and in turn, the said Petitioner shall deposit the said amount in GST account through form GST DRC-03.
The Registry is hereby directed to transfer the amount of Rs. 38,94,868/- to the account of the Petitioner- Wellwisher Properties, and after receipt of the said amount, the Petitioner- Wellwisher Properties is directed to deposit the said amount with GST Authorities.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1382
Legality of an assessment initiated under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - reversal of ITC - HELD THAT:- Since jurisdictional aspect leading to framing assessment under Section 74 of the CGST Act has been questioned, the matter requires consideration. Adequate number of copies of writ petition be served on the Senior Standing Counsel to enable him to file counter-affidavit.
List this matter on 17th June, 2025.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1381
Violation of principles of natural justice - ex parte impugned assessment orders - no opportunity of personal hearing was provided by the respondent prior to the passing of assessment orders - HELD THAT:- It is clear that any decision, order, summons, notices and other communications under the GST Act or Rules made thereunder, shall be served by any one of the modes as prescribed therein. The word “or” has been used immediately after each sub-clause, which means each clause is alternative to each other. Thus, if any one of the modes is adopted by the respondent to send notices, the same would be considered as a sufficient service. Accordingly, the respondents had adopted one of the modes provided in the above provisions, i.e., “to make it available in common portal” in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act and hence, the same has to be considered as “sufficient service”.
Whether making it available in the common portal shall be deemed to be served in terms of Section 169(2) of the GST Act, i.e., either by tendering or publishing or affixing? - HELD THAT:- As per the provisions of sub-section (1), in terms of Section 169(1)(a), the notice has to be served by way of “tendering”; in terms of Section 169(1)(b), the notice has to be served by way of “RPAD”; in terms of Section 169(1)(e), the notice has to be served by way of “publication”; in terms of Section 169(1)(f), the notice has to be served by way of “affixing” it at the last known place of business or residence of the Assessee. However, the applicability of provisions of Section 169(2) for the provisions of Section 169(1)(c) & (d), i.e., uploading the notices in portal or sending to e-mail id of an Assessee.
A reading of the provisions of Section 13(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act makes it clear that if the Assessee has “designated any computer resource” for the purpose of receiving the electronic records, the receipt of the said electronic records will occur when it enters into the designated computer resource. On the other hand, Section 13(2)(a)(ii) of the IT Act deals with the aspect that if the notices were uploaded in any computer resource, which was not designated by the addressee, the receipt will occur only at the time when the electronic records is retrieved by the said addressee - There is no dispute on the aspect that the common portal or the e-mail id of the concerned Assessee is the computer resource. Both the parties have no dispute on the said aspect. Now, the only dispute that has to be decided by this Court is as to whether the common portal is the “designated computer resource” or not.
In terms of provisions of Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act read with Section 13(2)(a)(i) & 13(2)(b) of the IT Act, it is crystal clear that once if the notices, orders and other communications are uploaded in the common portal, the receipt would occur immediately when the electronic records enter the said common portal, despite the fact that it is designated as computer resource by the Assessee or not - by reading the provisions of Section 13(2)(a) & (b) of the IT Act, it is clear that from the date of issuance of GST Registration number to the Assessee’s until its cancellation, whenever the summons, notices and other communications were uploaded in the common portal, the receipt occurs once when the said electronic records enter into the said common portal, which is the computer resource of the Assessee. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to hold that the uploading of notices, orders and other communications, in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, is a sufficient service.
The respondents, being well aware of the fact the mode of service adopted by them is not effective but only sufficient in terms of Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, had proceeded to pass ex parte assessment order. Normally, when a mode adopted by the respondents is not effective, they should have explored the possibilities by sending notices through other modes of services as prescribed therein. There is no bar for the respondent to do so. When such being the case, this Court is unable to understand as to why these Assessing officers had repeatedly sent all the notices, reminders, etc., through ineffective mode of service - this Court is inclined to set aside the ex parte assessment orders. However, since the mode adopted by the respondent is sufficient mode, the petitioner had chances to view the portal and participate in the proceedings, but they had failed to do so. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the fault is on both the petitioner as well as the respondent and thus, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders on terms.
Conclusion - The fault for non-response lies both with the petitioners for not accessing the portal or responding and with the respondents for not adopting effective modes of service and not affording personal hearing.
The matter is remanded to the concerned Assessing Officer for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 10% of disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1380
Issuance of SCN and subsequent demand for tax u/s 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the Act) made against a deceased person - HELD THAT:- A perusal Section 93 would reveal that the same only deals with the liability to pay tax, interest or penalty in a case where the business is continued after the death, by the legal representative or where the business is discontinued, however, the provision does not deal with the fact as to whether the determination at all can take place against a deceased person and the said provision cannot and does not authorise the determination to be made against a dead person and recovery thereof from the legal representative.
Once the provision deals with the liability of a legal representative on account of death of the proprietor of the firm, it is sine qua non that the legal representative is issued a show cause notice and after seeking response from the legal representative, the determination should take place.
Conclusion - The determination made in the present case wherein the show cause notice was issued and the determination was made against the dead person without issuing notice to the legal representative, cannot be sustained.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1379
Initiation or continuation of proceedings to create new tax demands against a corporate debtor after the approval of a Resolution Plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) - HELD THAT:- The additional demands made by the first respondent in respect of the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 will operate as roadblocks in implementing the approved Resolution Plan, and appellants will not be able to restart the operations of the CD on a clean slate - the demands raised by the first respondent against the CD in respect of assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are invalid and cannot be enforced.
The principle is crystal clear that once Resolution Plan has been approved by the NCLT, all other creditors are barred from raising their claims subsequently, as the same would disrupt the entire resolution process - there are no reason to keep this matter pending and accordingly the impugned Assessment Order passed under Section 74(9) of CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 by the Deputy Commissioner [Respondent No. 5] as well as the Impugned Demand Notice issued in pursuance to the Impugned Order dated 04.02.2025 passed under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 against the Petitioner relating to financial year 2017-2018, are quashed.
Conclusion - Once the Resolution Plan has been approved by the NCLT, all other creditors are barred from raising their claims subsequently, as the same would disrupt the entire resolution process.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1378
Violation of principles of natural justice - date of filing reply and the date of personal hearing - demand raised by the tax authority in excess of the amount specified in the SCN - violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of Section 75 deals with general provisions relating to determination of tax and sub-section (7) specifically stipulates that the amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded in the order shall not be in excess of the amount specified in the notice and no demand shall be confirmed on the grounds other than the grounds specified in the notice.
Admittedly, in the present case, the show-cause notice merely indicates the amount of Rs. 13,36,793/- as representing the tax, interest and penalty and the demand qua the three components has been raised at Rs. 63,51,001/-, which is ex facie contrary to the provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act.
So far as the plea pertaining to not providing any opportunity of hearing is concerned, once it is the case of the petitioner that he was unaware of the issuance of the show-cause notice and the reminder, the fact that in the notices issued to the petitioner, the date of filing of reply and date of personal hearing were the same looses its significance and it cannot be said that on account of such indications, the notice, on its own, would stand vitiated.
On account of violation of provisions of Section 75(7) of the Act, the order impugned cannot be sustained
Conclusion - The impugned order raising a demand far exceeding the amount specified in the show-cause notice was in direct violation of Section 75(7) of the Act and therefore unsustainable.
The matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 2 to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to file response to the show-cause notice and after providing opportunity of hearing, pass a fresh order in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1377
Levy of GST - assignment of leasehold rights of a plot of land allotted on lease by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), and the buildings constructed thereon by the lessee, to a third party, on the payment of a lump-sum consideration - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in GUJARAT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY & ORS. [2025 (1) TMI 516 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has taken a view that the assignment by sale or transfer of leasehold rights of the plot of land allotted by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) to the lessee or its successor (assignor) in favour of the third party (assignee) for consideration shall be an assignment/sale/transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property by the lessee-assignor in favour of a third party (assignee) who would then become a lessee of GIDC in place of the original allottee-lessee. In such circumstances, the Gujarat High Court held that the provisions of Section 7 (1) (a) of the CGST Act providing for scope of supply read with Clause 5 (b) of Schedule II and Clause 5 of Schedule III would not be applicable to such a transaction and the same would not be subject to levy of CGST as provided under Section 9 of the CGST Act.
In the facts of the present case, what is challenged by the Petitioner is the Impugned Order dated 30th January 2025 passed by Respondent No. 2.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1376
Levy of GST - assignment of leasehold rights of a plot of land allotted on lease by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC), and the buildings constructed thereon by the lessee, to a third party, on the payment of a lump-sum consideration - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in GUJARAT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY & ORS. [2025 (1) TMI 516 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has taken a view that the assignment by sale or transfer of leasehold rights of the plot of land allotted by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) to the lessee or its successor (assignor) in favour of the third party (assignee) for consideration shall be an assignment/sale/transfer of benefits arising out of immovable property by the lessee-assignor in favour of a third party (assignee) who would then become a lessee of GIDC in place of the original allottee-lessee. In such circumstances, the Gujarat High Court held that the provisions of Section 7 (1) (a) of the CGST Act providing for scope of supply read with Clause 5 (b) of Schedule II and Clause 5 of Schedule III would not be applicable to such a transaction and the same would not be subject to levy of CGST as provided under Section 9 of the CGST Act.
In the facts of the present case, what is challenged by the Petitioner is the Show Cause Notice issued to the Petitioner dated 7th January 2025.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1375
Violation of principles of natural justice - denial of adequate hearing to the Petitioner - ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) was availed of by the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- The Court has perused the repeated personal hearing notices which have been issued. Clearly, there has been a laxity by the Petitioner. However, the Respondent No. 1 also could have put the Petitioner to terms and not have passed a detailed order raising a substantial demand running into more than Rs.12 crores including the recovery of ineligible ITC and penalty of Rs. 6,34,61,579/-.
Considering the fact that the Petitioner has not been afforded a hearing though some attempts were made by the Petitioner to thereafter approach the Respondent No. 1’s office, there would be breach of natural justice.
Subject to the payment of said costs within a period of one week, the impugned order dated 3rd February, 2025 is set aside - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1374
Maintainability of a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in this case, prima facie, though, it would transpire that only after an investigation was launched, the payments were made. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had made payment even prior to launching of such investigation, for the respondents to not issue any demand cum show cause. However, the distinction that has been drawn by the petitioner with regard to the authority of the respondents to issue the show cause subsequent to payment, is best left to the authorities to decided in the appeal, especially having regard to the fact that there had been no contemporaneous challenge by the petitioner to the show cause notice which had been issued on 30th September 2022 and all factual material is not available before this Court.
In the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. [2013 (1) TMI 616 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has proceeded to observe that mere non-payment of duties is not equivalent to collusion or willful mis-statement but such may not be the case here, though no positive findings in this regard are being rendered by this Court as the same would prejudice the parties.
Conclusion - The period between the date of filing of the writ petition and the date of passing of this order shall stand excluded for computing the period of limitation for filing of the appeal.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1373
Effective date of application - Reduction in GST rate on works contract services from 18% to 12%, recommended by the GST Council on 5th August 2017 but notified only on 21st September 2017 - whether reduction of rate could be applied retrospectively to tenders submitted before the notification date? - recall of order - HELD THAT:- The judgment passed by this Court does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record nor there is discovery of any new fact, which was not in the knowledge of the review petitioner when the judgment sought to be reviewed was passed. The review petitioner has also not been able to point out any other sufficient reason, which would persuade to recall our well considered judgment.
Special Condition 49, as reproduced in paragraph No.12 of the judgment passed in M/s Pardeep Electricals and Builder Pvt. Ltd, [2023 (11) TMI 1369 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT] makes it abundantly clear that the rate quoted by the contractor shall be deemed to be inclusive of all taxes, duties, royalties, octroi and other levies payable under the respective statutes. The tendered rates shall be deemed to be inclusive of all “taxes directly related to contract value” with existing percentage rates prevailing on the last due date for receipt of tenders - From a plain reading of Clause 49, in its entirety, it becomes abundantly clear that the rates quoted by the contractor in his tender shall be inclusive of all taxes related to contract value, which would obviously include GST. The rate quoted by the contractor shall be taken to be inclusive of GST with existing percentage rate as prevailing on the last date for receipt of tenders.
Suffice it to say that in terms of SRO-GST-11 dated 8th July, 2017, the construction services falling under Section 5 Heading 9954 were taxable @ 18%. The composite supply of works contract as defined in clause 119 of Section 2 of the CGST Act, 2017 was included in the aforesaid heading. The subsequent notification SROGST- 2(Rate) dated 22nd August, 2017 did not bring any change with regard to the construction services rendered in the shape of composite supply of works contract. SRO-GST-2(Rate) dated 22nd August, 2017 brought about changes in the rates of GST only with respect to specific composite supply of works contract, which, as indicated above, were the works contracts supplied to Government, a local authority or a Governmental authority by way of construction, erection, commissioning, installation etc of specified items like a historical monument, canal, pipeline conduit etc. This is evident from Clause (iii) of Notification dated 22nd August, 2017. Similarly, Clause (v) of the said notification deals with composite supply of works contract supplied by way of construction, erection, commissioning or installation of original works pertaining to railways, a single residential units other than as a part of a residential complex, low-cost housing etc etc. GST Notification dated 22nd August, 2017 brought about changes in respect of item No.(iii) of Serial No.3 of SRO-GST 11 dated 8th July, 2017.
The composite supply of works contract as defined in Clause 119 of Section 2 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 figures at item No. 3(ii) of Notification dated 8th July, 2017 prescribing 18% GST was not altered by SRO-GST-2(Rate) dated 22nd August, 2017. What was sought to be amended and elaborated by notification dated 22nd August, 2017 was only item No.3 (i) at serial No.3 dealing with construction services other than composite supply of works contract mentioned in item No.3(ii) and the construction services mentioned in Clause 3(iii). The rate of GST prescribed vide notification dated 8th July, 2017, which was in-vogue at the time of submission of bids by the petitioner as also on the last due date for submission of bids, on composite supply of works was 18%. Vide notification dated 21st September, 2017, the rate of GST came to be reduced from 18% to 12%.
Conclusion - The applicable GST rate on the petitioner's contract at the time of tender submission was 18%, and the reduction to 12% notified later applied prospectively.
There are no merit in the petition - petition dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1372
Seeking to quash tax proceedings initiated under Section 74(5) of the KGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is deemed just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by treating the impugned proceedings comprising of Annexure-E, E1 and G as proceedings under Section 73 of the KGST Act instead of Section 74 of the KGST Act and by issuing further directions in this regard.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1371
Entitilement to transitional credit of service tax paid on advances received for future services under clause (c) of sub-section (11) of Section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 118 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - procedural error in entering the amount of service tax paid - HELD THAT:- In accordance with the provisions of Rule 118 of CGST Rules and clause (c) of sub-section (11) of Section 142 of CGST Act, 2017, appellant was entitled to transitional credit of Rs. 6,15,409/- by entering the same at Sr.No.11 of Form TRAN-1. Due to technical glitch, appellant had to enter the same at Sr. No. 5 of the said form TRAN-1. The said violation of not entering the required data at Sr.No.11 but entering the same at Sr. No. 5 is only procedural and for procedural infirmity, substantial right of the appellant cannot be denied.
Revenue is directed to treat the data entered at Sr. No. 5 of form TRAN-1 of Rs. 6,15,409/- to be treated as the one that is entered at Sr. No. 11 of the said proforma.
Conclusion - Entitlement to transitional credit under Section 142(11)(c) and Rule 118 of CGST Rules is substantive and cannot be defeated by procedural glitches in the GSTN portal.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1370
Seeking grant of regular bail - evasion of GST - clandestine supply of online money gaming services - HELD THAT:- Present case was registered against the applicant/ accused for evasion of GST of Rs.56.78 Crore approximately. As per the report of the Department, applicant/ accused had made taxable supplies without issue of invoice. It is averred by the Department that applicant/ accused alongwith his other associates made clandestine supply of online money gaming to recipients in India through various online money gaming platforms without issue of invoices and without payment of GST.
It is a settled position of law that the gravity of the offence has nothing to do with the punishment provided for the same. The gravity is to be judged by the impact, the offence has on the society, economy and financial stability of the country. It is settled law that economic offences in itself are considered to be gravest offences against the society at large and hence, are required to be treated differently in a matter of bail.
As per report of Department, to make payment to Indian customers of online money gaming against their winning amounts, applicant/ accused used third party applications namely Portal and from the data extracted from the mobile phone of the applicant/ accused, login credentials for such third party app and OTP for logging in such third party app were received on the mobile phone of applicant/ accused - There are serious allegations of evasion of GST of Rs.56.78 Crore against applicant/ accused. Investigation in the present case is at very crucial stage. Key members of the syndicate indulged in the present case are yet to be apprehended. Applicant/ accused is one of the key operators in this offence. The apprehension of the Department that accused might misuse his liberty once released on bail, seems to hold merit.
Conclusion - The applicant/accused is a key operator in a large-scale GST evasion syndicate involving online money gaming platforms, with substantial incriminating evidence against him.
Considering the seriousness of allegations and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant/ accused on bail. Therefore, present bail application stands dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1369
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - fraudulent availment and passing of Input Tax Credit (ITC) without actual supply of goods - HELD THAT:- The analysis of GSTR-2A of M/s. Khwaish Enterprise revealed that more than 90 percent of the supply made by them were to M/s. AC Goel Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. and it was also found that all supply made to M/s. Khwaish Enterprise was from M/s Sunrise Enterprises which is also a fictitious firm. Further, analysis of GSTR-2A of M/s. Sunrise Enterprises revealed that top supplier of the said firm happen to be M/s. JMV Papers Private Limited. M/s. Sunrise Enterprises is the only supplier of M/s. Khwaish Enterprise, who in turn has passed on fake ITC to M/s. AC Goel Tradelinks Private Ltd., whose de-facto controller is Ashwin Goel and M/s. Sunrise Enterprises has availed and utilised ITC to the tune of Rs. 8 Crore (approximately) and it is also a fictitious firm.
As per investigation conducted so far M/s. JMV Papers Private Ltd. passes bills without delivery of goods to M/s. Sunrise Enterprises (which is a non-existent firm) and M/s. Sunrise Enterprises passes bills without delivery of goods to M/s. Khwaish Enterprises (which is also a non-existent firm). M/s. Khwaish Enterprises passes bills without delivery of goods to M/s AC Goel Tradelinks Private Ltd. Statement of Sh. Vikram was recorded u/s 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 who is accountant of both the firms i.e. M/s. Khwaish Enterprises and M/s. Sunrise Enterprises and he has admitted in his statement that these firms only raise tax invoices/ passes bills without delivery of goods. It is a nexus/ syndicate in which all these fictitious firms/ companies are involved.
Further, investigation qua other firms and persons still pending. It is established from the report that cumulatively these firms have availed and utilized and passed on seemingly fake ITC to the tune of Rs. 15 crores (approximately). Despite issuance of four summons to applicant/ accused, he has not joined the investigation.
Conclusion - The applicant/accused is a key member of a syndicate involved in fraudulent availment and passing of fake ITC through fictitious firms, causing massive loss to the exchequer.
This Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to applicant/ accused. Therefore, present bail application stands dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1368
Loss on derivative on the issue of loss in shares and securities and the issue of Coordination charge - As petitioner submitted that the controversy between the petitioner and the Department no longer survives in view of the settlement of dues under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. Hence, appropriate orders may be made in this petition.
HELD THAT:- The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is placed on record.
Owing to the aforesaid reason, the Special Leave Petition has been rendered infructuous.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1367
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice issued to the Petitioner-Assessees u/s 148-A(1)(b) - scope of extended time limit by TOLA, 2021 - Revenue relied upon Rajeev Bansal [2024 (10) TMI 264 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] wherein Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 - HELD THAT:- As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021.
In such circumstances referred to above the original writ petition [2023 (2) TMI 1400 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack stands allowed.
The impugned notice therein stands quashed and set aside. The relief in terms of prayer (a) is granted. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1366
Accrual of income - Duty drawback had not accrued and become payable to the assessee and cannot be included in the taxable income of the Assessee - HELD THAT:- Whether the said claim is accepted or not is something which is in the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore, while passing an order of remand, the ITAT directed the respondent to place all the relevant material before the Assessing Officer. Thus, the scope of remand is very narrow for the limited purposes of ascertaining whether the claim made by assessee was accepted in the year under consideration.
While passing order of remand as noted above, the ITAT observed that if the claim of assessee was not accepted in the year under consideration, then no addition shall be made. However, if it is found that the claim of assessee was accepted in the year under consideration to that extent, addition would be retained. There was no reason for the High Court to interfere with the order of remand as it was passed only for the purposes of limited factual verification by the AO.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is interfered with only as regards the finding recorded by the High Court [2017 (12) TMI 536 - DELHI HIGH COURT] on question no.(iv) in paragraph nos.7 and 8.
Consequently, the order of remand passed by ITAT under order [2004 (10) TMI 278 - ITAT DELHI-A] stands restored. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 1365
Rejection of application for condonation of delay in filing Form-10B - HELD THAT:- Suppose the Petitioner wishes to file a supplementary affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. In that case, the same should be filed within 15 days from today and forwarded to the CBDT. CBDT must consider this additional affidavit if filed within 15 days from today and dispose of the Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay on its own merits and in accordance with law.
We clarify that we have not examined whether the Petitioner has made out any sufficient cause. CBDT will have to examine these matters in the first instance. Accordingly, all parties' contentions are left open.
We are sure that the CBDT will afford an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and the Department before disposing of the Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay. A reasoned order must be communicated to the Petitioner within four months of producing an authenticated copy of this order.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms without any cost order. The proceedings for the restoration of this petition do not survive, as it is pointed out that this petition was already restored.
............
|
9911796707
