Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2021 2021 (5) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 181 to 200 of 1081 Records

• 2021 (5) TMI 901 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Revision u/s 263 - validity of Assessment completed u/s 153C - Limitation for completion of assessment - Correct date of search - as per CIT Expenses and depreciation not properly examined by the AO. AO has not examined the applicability of section 2(22)(e) on intercorporate deposits, AO has not disallowed proportionate interest on advance made to sister concerns, though assessee has paid interest on loans/ advances and AO has not examined the credits received from Mr Vinod Ambawatta - as argued by assessee contravention to provisions of section 153C and without obtaining prior approval of the JCIT

  HELD THAT:- In view of provisions of section 153C, the date of search in the case of the assessee is 29.08.2013 which date falls under A.Y. 2014-15. Further, the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012-13 [2018 (9) TMI 1686 - ITAT DELHI] has already held that the year of search for the assessee is 2014-15.

  We, therefore, find merit in the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that the present assessment should have been framed by the AO having jurisdiction after cases were centralized i.e., the AO of Central Circle-I, Faridabad whereas the impugned assessment order has been framed by the DCIT, Central Circle-I, Gurgaon and, therefore, the order becomes bad in law. Further, once it is held that the present assessment year i.e., A.Y 2014-15 is the year of search, then the limitation for completion of assessment in the instant case expires on 31.03.2016.

  Since the AO in the instant case has passed the order on 30.08.2016, therefore, the same is barred by limitation. Further, since the AO has not issued the mandatory notice u/s 153C and has passed the order u/s 143(3) and has not obtained any approval from the JCIT before passing the order for the impugned assessment year which is the search year as held by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the immediately preceding years, therefore, the order is bad in law. Once it is held that the original order passed by the AO is without jurisdiction being passed by the wrong AO, barred by limitation being passed after 31.03.2016 and bad in law being passed in contravention to provisions of section 153C and without obtaining prior approval of the JCIT, therefore, the order passed u/s 263 against such assessment order is also bad in law and has to be quashed. We hold and direct accordingly. The additional grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.

  Applicability of section 2(22)(e) on intercorporate deposits - We find merit in the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that all inter-corporate deposits were given in the preceding years and the assessee has, in fact, received the deposits in the current year. Further, even the AO in the order passed subsequent to the 263 order has not made any addition u/s 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, 1961 or disallowed any depreciation on finance cost.

  Disallowance of proportionate interest on interest free advances to sister concerns - It is an admitted fact that most of these advances were given in the preceding years and no such disallowances were made in the assessments completed. Further, the own capital and free reserves were much more than the interest free advances given to sister concerns. Therefore, we find merit in the arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee that there is no error in the order of the AO on this issue.

  Credits received from Mr. Vinod Ambawatta - It is an admitted fact that assessments of the above person were done by the same AO u/s 153C who has passed the order in the case of the assessee. Assessee has filed all the relevant details such as confirmations, proof of identity, copy of ITR, bank details, etc. to prove the ingredients of provisions of section 68 in response to the letter of the AO. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the AO has not made any enquiries especially when the assessee as well as Mr. Vinod Ambawata were assessed by the same AO.

  For invoking the provisions of section 263, the order passed by the AO must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The twin conditions must be satisfied. Absence of any one condition cannot empower the PCIT to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961. The order passed by the AO in the instant case may be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue but cannot be termed as erroneous in view of our discussion on various issues in the preceding paragraph. Further, even after giving details before the PCIT in response to his notice u/s 263 the PCIT has not examined the details himself and came to a definite conclusion but has merely set aside the matter to the file of the AO for denovo assessment which is not in accordance with law as held in the case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd [2009 (9) TMI 633 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 900 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI
  

  Seeking possession of an asset of the corporate debtor held by India Infoline Finance Ltd. through SARFAESI proceedings - HELD THAT:- The Applicant has filed the financial contract disclosing that the Suspended Director Mr. Vinay Jain executing a loan agreement in favour of the Applicant herein, the Applicant disbursing the loan amount to the ESCROW Account, thereafter appropriating the said amount towards the earlier loan accounts which became irregular and also documents reflecting sale of the property mortgaged by Best View Properties Limited. Moreover, the Suspended Directors of the Corporate Debtor have not denied anywhere about taking amounts through three loan accounts prior to availing this loan by the Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor and depositing this loan amount of ₹ 85 Crore in the ESCROW Account, thereafter adjusting the same against the previous three loan accounts. All these transactions having remained apparent on record, we wonder how this RP has ignored all this material establishing financial contract, disbursal of the amount, thereafter signing memo of deposit of title deeds for creation of equitable mortgage.

  With regard to obligation of guarantee, there is a separate guarantee deed the corporate debtor taking obligation upon itself to pay the loan amount of ₹ 85 Crores along with the interest in the event Vinay Jain defaulted in repaying the loan amount. In addition to it, the corporate debtor has also given its property as security by deposit of title deeds. These are two separate agreements binding the corporate debtor. To proceed against the corporate debtor to place claim upon it as financial debt, IIFL need not rely upon the mortgage charge because section 5 (8)(i) of the Code says that when any guarantee is given over the money borrowed by the borrower with a promise that he would repay the money borrowed along with interest, such obligation of guarantee will fall within the ambit of the clause (i) of section 5 (8) of the Code. For the present claim will fit into clause (i) of definition of financial debt, to admit the claim, the RP need not look into as to whether any charge created and whether such charge has been properly recorded. Of course, all documentary proof is evident on record to prove that money is availed, security is given towards the consideration received.

  Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 899 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  EOU - Clearance of goods in DTA - manufacture and export of ‘Ceramic Colours/Pigments, falling under CETA 32071040 - It was alleged by the Department that the items cleared in DTA by the appellants were not similar to the goods exported and there was violation of the provisions of Para 6.8 of FTP - benefit of N/N. 23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 - Extended period of limitation - similarity of goods, exported by the appellant - HELD THAT:- Various judgments have given wider meaning to the word ’Similar’. It would mean similar, same class of or same kind of goods. In the instant case, the goods exported and the goods cleared are described as ceramic colours. In view of the ratio of the various judgements cited, there is not even an iota of doubt that the goods cleared by the appellant in DTA are nothing but the goods which are similar to the goods exported well within the meaning assigned to the same in paragraph 6.8 of FTP. It has been demonstrated that the manufacturing activity is same for both type of colours. The similarity of the goods is established beyond reasonable doubt by the test report got conducted on the impugned goods for the subsequent period and relied upon, as is evident from the Order-in-Original, dated 31.12.2012 (adjudicating the SCN issued for the period Feb 2011 to Jan 2012).

  The facts of the case here are in a narrower compass compared to the cases discussed as above, the difference in goods only being that of concentrated or diluted. Both of them are named ceramic colours only. Test reports indicated that they have similar composition as rightly held by the Learned Commissioner for the subsequent period. Therefore, there is no doubt that the goods exported and the goods cleared by the appellants are similar in terms of Para 6.8 of FTP. Moreover, the fact that Development Commissioner has issued permission is not denied - In view of the judgement in COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD VERSUS NOVAPAN INDUSTRIES LTD. [2007 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT], the Order-In-Original should hold good for the earlier period also. It is pertinent to note that the department did not bring forth any change in the circumstances or the quality of the goods exported and cleared in DTA by the appellant. The department has wrongly tried to differentiate between the goods on the basis of physical characteristics or the price of the same.

  Thus, the department has wrongly tried to differentiate between the goods on the basis of physical characteristics or the price of the same.

  Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The permission given by the Development Commissioner would certainly indicate the products which are to be exported and cleared in DTA. When the description is ceramic colours, in both export as well as DTA clearance documents, the department was within their rights to call for clarification from the Development Commissioner or the appellants so as to satisfy themselves. This having not been done, it is not open for the department to invoke extended period, alleging that the appellants have suppressed some information, after considerable lapse of time. No suppression, leave alone intent evade duty has been established - the goods cleared in DTA by the appellants in DTA are similar to those exported and that there are no violations provisions of either paragraph 6.8 of FTP or Central Excise notification 23/2003, the appeal survives on merits - the issue of limitation will be inconsequential.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 898 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI BENCH
  

  Exclusion of time from CIRP process - covid-19 lockdown pandemic situation - HELD THAT:- The prayer of the IRP to exclude to 154 days to continue CIRP till 17/07/2020 has already been allowed by this Bench. So, this prayer of the applicant has become infructuous in view of the order dated 11.02.2021 passed by this Bench.

  Stay on proceeding not provided - HELD THAT:- Since the proceeding was not stayed by the Hon'ble NCLAT, therefore, the prayer of the applicant to exclude the period commencing from 27.07.2020 to 04.09.2020(39 days) on the ground that Hon'ble NCLAT has stayed the proceeding is not liable to be accepted. Accordingly, this prayer of the applicant/Resolution Professional is hereby rejected.

  Exclusion of Covid-19 period exclusion for the period beyond 17.07.2020 to 27.07.2020 for the situs of office of RP (as registered with Insolvency and Bankruptcy of India) being in Containment Zone - HELD THAT:- Mere plain reading of the Rule 15 and 153 shows that the time appointed or fixed by or under these rules can be extended but herein the case in hand, the time for completion of the CIRP is not fixed under the NCLT rules rather it is fixed under the IBC, 2016. Section 12 of IBC, 2016 makes a provision for completion of CIRP and in view of second proviso of Section 12 Sub Section 3 of the IBC, 2016, the Insolvency Resolution Process shall mandatorily be completed within the period of 330 days from the insolvency commencement date - this Adjudicating Authority is not empowered to extend or exclude the period under Rule 15 and 153 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 - The period of 11 days commencing from 17.07.2020 to 27.07.2020 is excluded on the ground that the Registered office of The Resolution Professional was situated within the Containment Zone at Vaishali Sector-1, Ghaziabad.

  Seeking further exclusion of 60 days period for lockdown and Covid-19 Pandemic in view of infection in employees intermittent during the period of lockdown - HELD THAT:- The applicant has failed to produce any document to show that two employees whose Covid-19 reports have been enclosed by the applicant were the employees of the applicant and they played a vital role in completing the CIRP period and in their absence, it could not be possible to proceed further in the CIRP. Therefore, on the ground of infection to the employees during the period of lockdown, the prayer of the applicant to exclude the period of 60 days is not liable to be accepted.

  Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 897 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Disallowance u/s. 40A(3) - HELD THAT:- Since the amounts are in the nature of reimbursement, not debited to P&L account of the assessee, no disallowance u/s. 40A(3) is called for.

  Addition on account of seized material - HELD THAT:- As argued that the name, address, PAN number, bank statement, details of debit, credit and details regarding the refund of the amounts have been duly submitted before the revenue authorities. The amount has been received on 07.03.2007, repaid on 11.06.2007 even before the date of search i.e. 15.11.2007, it can be considered as a business loan received and the same has been duly refunded. We have also perused the record before us and find that there is no material to prove that the amount received is liable for tax u/s. 68 and the addition made by the AO is directed to be deleted.

  Addition made on account of PDC and notional interest - HELD THAT:- Since, the issue of PDC has already been dealt on merits of the case, we hereby hold that no notional interest on such amount can be upheld. The interest calculated on the PDC by the AO is without any basis or evidence. Hence, we direct the addition made by the AO be deleted.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 896 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Estimation of income on bogus purchases - CIT-A deleted the penalty - HELD THAT:- AO had disallowed the entire purchases alleged to be bogus; however, learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% being the profit element estimated on the alleged bogus purchases. Thus the purchase of goods by the assessee is not in doubt, but the source of such purchases is doubtful. For that reason alone, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has made an estimated addition. In the aforesaid scenario, it cannot be said that the assessee has, either concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. That being the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the penalty imposed. - Decided against revenue.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 895 - ITAT CHENNAI
  

  Capital gain computation - adopting the value determined by the DVO in terms of section 50C - HELD THAT:- As the facts are pari materia with the facts already considered by the Tribunal[ 2018 (10) TMI 1893 - ITAT CHENNAI]Therefore, by following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of ITAT., Chennai in the case of ITO Vs. Shri Neelamanikandan (supra), we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to recompute the long term capital gain by adopting the value determined by the DVO in terms of section 50C of the Act. Appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 894 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - weighted deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) claimed in the original return and later in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, he sought to withdrew the claim of weighted deduction - HELD THAT:- Explanation to section 35(1)(ii) of the Act clearly supports the case of the assessee by categorically providing that the claim of deduction in the hands of the donor (i.e the assessee herein) cannot be disturbed under any circumstances even if the recognition of the donee institution has been withdrawn by the competent authority subsequently. The purpose of this Explanation is that the bonafide belief of the assessee (donor institution) at the time of making contributions should be respected and it cannot be faulted for the fraudulent acts, if any, committed by the donee institution. Despite this , the assessee had come forward to offer the said claim of weighted deduction by withdrawing the same during the course of assessment proceedings and had paid tax thereon. This proves the bonafide intent of the assessee, to purchase peace from the department and to avoid vexatious litigation in this regard. In our considered opinion, this intention of the assessee deserves to be accepted in toto. Hence this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act.

  We find that this issue on the levy of penalty on the very same addition was the subject matter of adjudication by this tribunal in the case of Sammy E Major [2020 (7) TMI 244 - ITAT MUMBAI] for Asst Year 2013-14 wherein the penalty u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act was deleted. In the aforesaid case before this tribunal , the assessee therein made a similar claim of weighted deduction in the original return and later in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, he sought to withdrew the claim of weighted deduction. This tribunal had deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act in such circumstances. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 893 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , KOLKATA BENCH
  

  Approval of Scheme of Amalgamation - Section 230(6) read with Section 232(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The instant petition is admitted and next date of hearing is fixed on 21st May, 2021.

  At least 10 (ten) clear days before the said date fixed for hearing, the Petitioners shall cause notice of hearing to be advertised in the FINANCIAL EXPRESS in English and Bengali translation thereof in DAINIK STATESMAN as per Rule 16(1) of the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 - Another notice pursuant to Section 230(5) of the Companies Act, 2013 along with accompanying documents, including the copies of the aforesaid Scheme and statement under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, as sent earlier, shall be served again on the aforesaid Statutory Authorities by sending the same to them by hand delivery through special messenger or by post or by email within one week from the date of receiving this order.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 892 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Revision u/s 263 - Assessee argued as no opportunity of hearing to the assessee given - Gain on foreign exchange receivables and related forward contracts, is an additional consideration for slump sale of domestic formulation business, and is, therefore, chargeable to tax, which, according to the learned Principal Commissioner, should be added to the returned income of the assessee - HELD THAT:- Principal Commissioner has not given any opportunity of hearing to the assessee on the precise point on which the powers of revision exercised, and, to borrow the words of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitabh Bachan [2016 (5) TMI 493 - SUPREME COURT] “there can be no dispute that while the C.I.T. is free to exercise his jurisdiction on consideration of all relevant facts, a full opportunity to controvert the same and to explain the circumstances surrounding such facts, as may be considered relevant by the assessee, must be afforded to him by the C.I.T. prior to the finalization of the decision”. To this extent, undoubtedly, the impugned order is vitiated in law, but the question is what are the implications of this failure on the part of the learned Commissioner.

  While one can understand anxiety of the assessee to bring an end to the dispute at this forum itself, we are of the considered view that the right course of action will be to send the matter back to the file of the Commissioner for giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, on the point on which the impugned revision is actually done in the present case, and thus afford an opportunity to the assessee explain the circumstances surrounding this issue, as may be considered relevant by the assessee. Commissioner will also consider whether the rate of foreign exchange conversion, as pointed out by the assessee and as accepted by the Assessing Officer, is indeed in order, and, if so, whether the subject assessment order can indeed be said to erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. In other words, before deciding the matter afresh in the remanded proceedings, learned Commissioner must take a categorical call on this factual aspect, now that it has been pointed out, and in case the stand of the assessee is found to be correct, the matter must end there.

  As the matter is being remitted back to the file of the learned Commissioner, it is made clear that the subject matter of hearing will be confined to the issue in the impugned revision order, that the learned Commissioner does not have the liberty of modifying or expanding the scope of the impugned revision proceedings, as the remand is for the limited purpose of providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee on the points taken in the impugned revision proceeding - Assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 891 - ITAT BANGALORE
  

  Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - shortfall in deduction of tax at source due to difference in opinion - HELD THAT:- As to the taxability of any payment or nature of the payment made under the TDS provisions. It is also submitted that for this reason no disallowance could be made by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia). Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of S.K.Tekriwal [2011 (10) TMI 10 - ITAT, KOLKATA]on identical facts analysed identical argument. Their Lordships considered the very same issue of applicability of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, in a case where there was short deduction of tax at source on payment made to sub-contractors. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that if there is any short fall in deduction of tax due to difference in opinion on understanding of taxability of any item or nature of payment falling under various TDS provisions, no disallowance can be made by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

  Admittedly, the present facts is not the case of no deduction of TDS and that assessee under a bona fide belief, deducted TDS at 2% under section 194C. It is also apparent from the agreement that it was a bundle of services that was rendered by VBHC to assessee against which a consolidated payment has been made.

  Respectfully following the above decision, we are of the view that no disallowance could be made by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, if there is any short fall in the action of tax at source due to difference of understanding our opinion as to the taxability of any item or nature of payment falling under various TDS provisions. Grounds raised by assessee stands allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 890 - ITAT SURAT
  

  Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - return of income on presumptive basis u/s.44AD - whether the assessee can take the advantage provided in section 44AD of the Act? - HELD THAT:- Since the assessee’s turnover for the Assessment Year 2013-14 is to the tune of ₹ 92,33,844/- and the assessee had filed the return of income on presumptive basis u/s.44AD of the Act, therefore assessee is entitled to take the benefit of the provisions of section 44AD of the Act, and hence assessee is not liable to deduct TDS under section 40(a)(ia).

  Whole of the process of taxation must follow the procedures which are valid under the law and must adhere to law i.e. substantive one as well as procedural one too. Therefore,as provided in the Constitution of India that every step should be taken to ensure that levy and collection of the taxes is strictly in accordance with law – not only substantive one but the procedural law, as well. Therefore, we do not agree with the statement of the assessing officer to the effect that “the dues to the crown has no limitation and has precedence over all other allowance and claims.

  The assessee’s turnover for the Assessment Year 2013-14 which is below one crore rupees, the threshold limit prescribed u/s 44AD of the Act and the assessee had filed the return of income on presumptive basis u/s.44AD of the Act therefore assessee is entitled to take the benefit of the provisions of section 44AD of the Act. In view of the reasons set out above, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee is entitled to take the benefit of the provisions of section 44AD of the Act. Based on the above factual position narrated above and precedents applicable to the facts, it is abundantly clear that assessee is not liable to deduct TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, therefore we delete the addition. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 889 - ITAT SURAT
  

  Reopening of assessment u/s.147 - issuing notice u/s.148 - addition u/s 69 - search carried out at the premises of assessee - CIT(A) while confirming the order of AO dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution - HELD THAT:- In case of Shri Rajiv K.Tulsiyan, Brother-inlaw of assessee . [2018 (6) TMI 1754 - ITAT SURAT] tribunal on almost similar set of facts, in case of Shri Rajiv K.Tulsiyan, while admitting the additional evidence, restored the matter to the file of the AO.

  As considering the statement of assessee and Rajiev K Tulsiyan, recorded by DRI that the affair of assessee’s firm was also managed by Rajiv K.Tulsiyan. The ld. AR also vehemently submitted that father of Rajiv K.Tulsiyan was not well during the period when the appeal of assessee was pending before first appellate authority and ultimately died. Further, considering the facts that lower authorities have passed ex-party order against the assessee. Therefore, keeping in view the principal of natural justice that the impugned order is passed without hearing the assessee. Accordingly the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. Appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purpose.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 888 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  

  Recovery of Refund of 50% of amount of CGST with interest and penalty - benefits under the Northeast Industrial Policy - HELD THAT:- Let a notice of motion returnable on 19.05.2021 be issued.

  As the learned Standing counsel for the respondents has accepted notice extra copy of the writ petition be provided within 2(two) days - List the matter on 19.05.2021.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 887 - ITAT HYDERABAD
  

  Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - no sale of immovable property during the financial year 2010-11 and also requested for supply of reasons for reopening of the assessment u/s 148 - HELD THAT:- There is no mention of any letters nor there was any mention of supplying the reasons for reopening of the assessment to the assessee. Though a specific ground was taken before the CIT (A),he has not held the issue in favour of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd [2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] held that where a notice u/s 148 is issued and the assessee, after filing of the return of income in response to such notice, requests the AO to supply the reasons for reopening, AO is bound to supply the reasons for reopening the assessment and only after disposal of the objections, if any, raised by the assessee, can the AO proceed to reassess the income of the assessee. In this case, it is clear that the Assessing Officer has not followed the due procedure as mandated by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (cited Supra).

  We deem it fit and proper to remand the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to supply the reasons for reopening of the assessment to the assessee and only after disposal of the objections, if any, raised by the assessee, the AO shall proceed to recompute the income of the assessee in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee shall be given a fair opportunity of hearing. Assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 886 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Grant of Bail - time limitation - High Court failed to consider the mandatory requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT:- We have been repeatedly deprecating the practice of authorities coming before this Court after inordinate delays assuming as if the Law of Limitation does not apply to them. Repeatedly, reliance is placed on the judgments of vintage when technology was not easily available. No reference is made to the subsequent judgment in the Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT] which has dealt with the issue that consideration of the ability of the Government to file appeal in time would have to be dealt with in the context of the technology now available and merely shuffling files from one table to the other would no more be a sufficient reason.

  We have been imposing costs for wasting judicial time in such matters which are filed with this oblique motive of saving the officers. We thus, consider appropriate to follow the same action in the present case and impose costs of ₹ 25,000/- on the petitioner to be recovered from the officers concerned. The cost be deposited in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Welfare Fund within four weeks along with the certificate of recovery from the officers concerned.

  The special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 885 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Non-compliance with directions contained in order dated 05.04.2021, regarding remission of amount due - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the fact that there is a Coronavirus pandemic raging in the country, we are inclined to give a short accommodation to Ms. Malhotra, to place the petitioner’s difficulties on record, by way of an affidavit - In the meanwhile, Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra states that the petitioner, to show its bona fides, will remit ₹ 25,00,000 to the respondents, on or before 01.06.2021.

  Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 884 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Profiteering - Mr. Prakash’s say that, since Nirala Projects Pvt. Ltd. did not furnish the necessary details, the reconciliation exercise could not be carried out - HELD THAT:- Given the fact that two out of three entities have, it appears, passed on a substantial amount qua the purported profiteered amount, to their customers, the respondents will not, for the moment, subject the petitioners to coercive measures.

  List the matters on 09.08.2021.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 883 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Denial of principles of natural justice - petitioner has sought an adjournment on the ground that the petitioner is collating materials necessary to substantiate its stand before the Officer. However, the impugned order of assessment has been passed without taking note of the request of the petitioner for adjournment - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the request for adjournment has not been rejected, neither the assessee duly intimated. Thus, there has been apparent violation of principles of natural justice.

  The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner will comply with the directions in notice dated 10.03.2021 and intimate the Assessing Officer accordingly within a period of three (3) weeks from today. The respondents will facilitate receipt of such reply by the petitioner by enabling the portal to receive the objections. Upon receipt of objections, the Assessing Authority will hear the petitioner and take forward the assessment and complete the same in accordance with law.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 882 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Order passed u/s 144 greatly prejudices the petitioner - Non-appearance was on account of the fact that his father had suffered a traumatic road accident in March, 2017, which rendered him brain dead - HELD THAT:- As noted that there has been a hiatus of two years between the discharge of the petitioner's father and the issuance of notice by the Assessing Officer prior to framing of assessment, vide order dated 08.12.2019. Taking a humanitarian view of the matter, to which there is no serious opposition put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents substantial interests of justice would require permitting the petitioner to cause appearance before the Assessing Officer/R2 and put forth his submission. The files for assessment of the petitioner appear to have been transferred from R1 to R2. No challenge is put forth to the transfer of files from R1 to R2.

  Thus the impugned order and the consequent rectification are set aside. The petitioner will appear before R2 along with all/necessary materials in support of his stand on Wednesday, the 12th of May, 2021.

  ---

1 ....67891011121314........ 55