|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 2025 Records
-
2019 (7) TMI 1906 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - Section 33(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- It appears that there was no specific prohibition on the 'Committee of Creditors' for considering one or other 'Resolution Plan'. They held meeting after the first order of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, i.e. on Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 282 of 2019 27th September, 2018 and on different dates i.e. 8th October, 2018, 22nd October, 2018, 30th October, 2018, 6th November, 2018, 10th December, 2018 and 18th January, 2019.
The 'Resolution Plan' of the Appellant as was placed was not accepted - no case is made out for exclusion of any of the period for the purpose of counting 270 days which stands completed on passing the impugned order of liquidation.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1905 - DELHI HIGH COURT
TP Adjustment - exclusion of comparables which the ITAT held to be functionally different from the Assessee - HELD THAT:- Three of the comparables involved are Infosys BPO Ltd., TCS E-serve International Ltd. and TCS E-serve Ltd. This Court has very recently in M/S. AVAYA INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT [2019 (7) TMI 1279 - DELHI HIGH COURT] giving detailed reasons why on the facts of that case, which are more or less similar to the facts on hand, such comparables ought to have been excluded. The said judgment therefore covers the said issue against the Revenue.
As far as the comparables Accentia Techonologies Ltd. and E4e Healthcare are concerned, the Tribunal has in the impugned order explained in detail why these also should be excluded. The principles explained by this Court in the aforementioned judgment would be equally applicable to these comparables as well.There are several other orders of this Court upholding the exclusion of the aforementioned comparables.See EVALUESERVE SEZ (GURGAON) PVT. LTD. [2018 (2) TMI 1750 - DELHI HIGH COURT], B.C. MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD. [2017 (12) TMI 255 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and M/S. SANVIH INFO GROUP PVT. LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS OKS SPAN TECH PVT. LTD.) [2019 (5) TMI 1211 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
-
2019 (7) TMI 1904 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Disallowance of interest - Interest free advances to sister concerns - commercial expediency - HELD THAT:- Authorities are under obligation to examine the purpose for which the assessee advanced the money to its sister- concern and what the sister concern did with this money, in order to decide whether it was for commercial expediency. Further the commercial expediency has wide amplitude which may not have been incurred on any legal obligation but still it is allowable as business expenditure if the same is established to be incurred on the grounds of commercial expediency - once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business, the Revenue cannot justifiable claim to put itself in the armchair of the businessman and to assume the role to decide how much is reasonable expenditure having regard to the circumstances of the case. The authorities must not look at the matter from their own view point but has to see that of prudent business man.
In assessee case trade advances which are in the nature of commercial transactions would not fall within the ambit of word 'advance', hence as per circular cannot be subjected to any disallowance/addition. It is not in dispute that the assessee has filed the confirmation from M/s. Bhagwati Lacto Vegetarian Export Pvt. Ltd. with regard to the business dealing with the assessee and having received funds as security amount against the paddies stored for milling in assessee's premises during the F.Y.2009-10, which were milled in subsequent F.Y.2010-11 and also paid qua job work of paddy. The company also certified that it also deals with the purchase and sale of rice with the assessee frequently in subsequent years. The assessee has also produced milling agreement dated 15.11.2009 which is relevant for the Asst. year: 2010-11 as of the instant case, wherein specifically the terms and conditions have been set out for milling of the paddy and the Department did not doubt either the confirmation from M/s Bhagwati Lacto Vegetarian Export Pvt. Ltd. to the effect that they had the business dealing with the assessee nor the milling agreement submitted by the assessee before the authorities below - for period starting October 2009, addition towards the interest made on the basis of advanced/security amount paid to M/s. Bhagwati Lacto Vegetarian Export Pvt. Ltd. is liable to be deleted.
Advance given to the M/s. Rahul Udyog we are not convinced that the assessee had any commercial expediency for paying the security amount therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the Assessee's claim of business expediency qua M/s. Rahul Udyog and thus the decision of the Ld CIT(A) qua addition on account of M/s. Rahul Udyog is sustained.
No disallowance of interest u//s 36(1)(iii) can be made for opening balances - See M/S PMS DIESELS VERSUS ADDL. C.I.T. [2017 (12) TMI 1041 - ITAT AMRITSAR]
Addition of freight paid to truck operators - CIT(A) has affirmed the view of the Assessing Officer by observing that bills of Truck Freight has been raised by the Truck Union and freight has been paid in cash to a single entity which is in violation of provision of section 40A(3) - HELD THAT:- Revenue Department determined that the bills have been raised by the Truck Union whereas the assessee has claimed that the payments have been made to individual Truck Operators as per their billties and Truck Numbers, so there is no question of aggregating the figures of freight payable to Truck operator individually. Further despite submitting the billties of Truck, showing truck numbers and payments to them separately, the Assessing Officer has wrongly added the amount. Hence, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and the rival contention/claim of the assessee and the Revenue Department, we are inclined to remand the instant issue qua freight charges, to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide afresh.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1903 - SC ORDER
Intervening period between the issuance of show cause notices and issuance of notice for personal hearing - HELD THAT:- Delay condoned.
Issue notice.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1902 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Excess price paid on purchase of sugarcane - Disallowance from total sale price paid to the sugarcane growers for the supply of sugarcane - HELD THAT:- Issue of payment of excessive price on purchase of sugarcane by the assesses is no more res integra in view of the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. . [2019 (3) TMI 321 - SUPREME COURT].
We set-aside the impugned orders on this score and remit the matter to the file of the AO for deciding it afresh as per law in consonance with the articulation of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforenoted judgment. The AO would allow deduction for the price paid under clause 3 of the Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966 and then determine the component of distribution of profit embedded in the price paid under clause 5A, by considering the statement of accounts, balance sheet and other relevant material supplied to the State Government for the purpose of deciding/fixing the final price/additional purchase price/SAP under this clause.
The amount relatable to the profit component or sharing of profit/distribution of profit paid by the assessee, which would be appropriation of income, will not be allowed as deduction, while the remaining amount, being a charge against the income, will be considered as deductible expenditure. At this stage, it is made clear that the distribution of profits can only be qua the payments made to the members. In so far as the non-members are concerned, the case will be considered afresh by the AO by applying the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1901 - SUPREME COURT
Maintainability of review petition - condonation of delay in filing petition - HELD THAT:- There is an inordinate delay of 207 days in filing the Review Petition. The explanation offered for the same was not satisfying. The Review Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself.
Even on merits, there are no error in the order impugned, much less an apparent error on the face of the record, so as to call for its review - the Review Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as also on merits.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1900 - ITAT DELHI
Addition of unexplained jewellery and unexplained cash - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the records it can be seen that the jewellery belongs to wife of the assessee and not belong to the assessee. Thus, the said jewellery cannot be added in the income of the assessee. The CIT(A) was not justified in confirming this addition to the extent of 200 gms. jewellery in the hands of the assessee, because the entire jewellery belong to the wife of the assessee as per the statement of the son of the assessee. Therefore Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are allowed.
Unexplained cash - As the assessee and his wife are senior citizens who required medical attention at any instance and therefore the cash is required at home for emergency situations. Therefore Ground no. 3 is allowed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1899 - ITAT BANGALORE
TP Adjustment - selection of MAM - RPM OR TNMM - determination of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in respect of an international transaction of sale of reagents by the Assessee to its Associated Enterprise (AE) - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2019 (6) TMI 601 - ITAT MUMBAI] RPM was the MAM and directed the TPO to determine ALP applying RPM as the MAM.
Assessee sells re agents (chemicals) after purchase from AE but to use re agents the customer has to possess analysers, which is given free of cost by the Assessee. Therefore, the Assessee is not merely indulging in simple trading in reagents.
Perusal of the order of the Tribunal for AY 2010-11 would show that the same reasons were given by the TPO in AY 2010-11 for coming to the conclusion that the Assessee is not a reseller simpliciter and therefore RPM cannot be the MAM. The findings recorded by the Tribunal of its order for AY 2010-11 would show that manufacturing activity had not commenced in that year and this fact remains the same for AY 2011-12 also. The finding in the same paragraph by the Tribunal is that the Assessee purchases and sells re agents and chemicals without any value addition. The tribunal has also recorded a finding that analyzer, spares and consumables, though were imported, however, they were not sold but were provided in the laboratories/diagnostics units of the third party customers for testing and research activity. In the light of similarity of facts in AY 2011-12 & 2010-11, we are of the view that the decision rendered by the Tribunal in AY 2010-11 would equally apply to AY 2011-12 also. Following the aforesaid decision of the tribunal we hold that RPM is the MAM for determining ALP.
Computing arm's length interest in respect of receivable outstanding from the AEs beyond six months as on 31.03.2011 - normal credit period was only 60-90 days whereas the Assessee had allowed credit period of more than 700 to 800 days - whether allowing a greater period of payment to the AE would be an international transaction and income from such arrangement should also be determined having regard to Arm’s Length Price as laid down in Sec.92? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, admittedly the receivables relate to transactions in FY 2007-08 & 2008-09.TPO has not spelt out as to what is the nature of the receivables and whether it had any relation with any international transaction of those years and what is the position with regard to the ALP of those transactions, whether working capital adjustment were made while determining ALP of connected international transaction, what is the effect of payables by the Assessee to the very same AE and on what account these payables were due to the Assessee, whether in the circumstance where there is receivables as well as payables from the very same AE, can you say that there is any real benefit of longer credit period allowed to the AE in respect of receivables from AE.
Without an analysis of all these facts, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that allowing longer credit period to the AE was an international transaction and income from such transaction has to be determined having regard to ALP. The issue requires to be set aside to the TPO for examination afresh of the question whether allowing longer credit period was in the nature of an international transaction in the facts and circumstances of the case. TPO will decide the issue afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
Rate of interest to be adopted - as assuming that there was an international transaction, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly applied LIBOR rate + 3% as the appropriate rate of interest, taking note of the judicial pronouncements on the issue including in the case of CIT v. Cotton Naturals (I) Private Limited[2015 (3) TMI 1031 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that Arm’s length interest rate needs to be the market-determined rate applicable to the currency in which the loan has to be repaid. Therefore there is no merit in the appeal by the revenue.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1898 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - HELD THAT:- It is made clear that any payment made for the tax amount will be subject to the result of the writ petition. If the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, the said amount will be refunded to it along with interest. Put up the matter after the pleadings are over between the parties.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1897 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Recovery of salary paid - breach of contract - employee leaves the employment before completion of contract period - HELD THAT:- On perusal of record and provisions of Service Tax w.e.f. 1 July, 2002, it is noted that a service provided by employee to an employer is not covered by the provision of service tax. The transaction in the present case is recovery of such salary paid to the employee for breach of contract. Therefore, the same is not covered by levy of Service Tax.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1896 - SUPREME COURT
Permission for withdrawal of application - HELD THAT:- In view of letter circulated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeking withdrawal of the Civil Appeal, the Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1895 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - Large scale misappropriation of money of innocent depositors and investors - HELD THAT:- The material presently on record does indicate that there has been large scale financial misappropriation leading to serious financial loss to the aforesaid Bank and consequently to the investors and depositors. It is evident that the trouble in the Bank was brewing since the year 2016 when the R.B.I. issued a directive on 15.12.2016 to the Bank to cease its Banking activities. The report of the Special Auditor also shows the details of the large scale misappropriation and consequent loss to the Bank. There is no dispute about the fact that the applicants are Chairman/Directors of the said Bank and that they are husband and wife. As the Chairman of the Bank, the applicant was certainly responsible for the activities of the Bank and ultimately for the aforesaid misappropriation of huge amounts of money, although details of the same and the evidence against him would be a matter for trial.
In the case of SUDHIR AND ORS. VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [2015 (10) TMI 2765 - SUPREME COURT], while considering question of grant of anticipatory bail, in a similar case involving misappropriation of public funds and corruption, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court, was rightly cancelled by the High Court, looking to the gravity of the offences.
The documents handed over by the learned APP to this Court which have been unearthed during the investigation do indicate that there has been large scale misappropriation of funds in the said Bank. The applicant/Chairman of the Bank was obviously in the know of the happenings in the Bank from the year 2015 and even earlier, which ultimately led to the R.B.I. directive closing down all banking activities and appointment of Liquidator on the Bank. But, that alone cannot be a reason to conclude that custodial interrogation of the said applicants would be mandatory - But, the material on record to which the learned APP has invited attention of this Court, clearly indicates that the applicant/Chairman of the Bank had actively connived with co-accused persons in causing loss and misappropriation of crores of rupees. This prima facie finding can be rendered on the basis of the material presently on record, only limited to deciding the question as to whether the present application of the Chairman of the Bank can be granted. There is no doubt about the fact that offences alleged against the applicants are of an extremely serious nature because there has been large scale misappropriation of funds of the Bank, which has ultimately caused serious financial loss to innocent depositors and investors.
Huge amounts of money in cash were facilitated to be siphoned off in connivance with co-accused persons. In this context, it would be futile to take the view that since investigation in such a case necessarily involves documentary material, the custodial interrogation of the applicants would not be necessary. The money trail in such cases can be unearthed only after proper interrogation and investigation is carried out by the investigating agency - There can be no doubt about the fact that there would be attempts by the accused persons to stall the investigation and to ensure that money trail is lost. This is particularly significant when there is prima facie material to show that large scale manipulations have been undertaken in account books as well as computer data entries at the behest of accused like the applicant/Chairman of the Bank herein.
As regards the question of adverse inference drawn by the Sessions Court due to absence of the applicants before the said Court on three dates despite specific orders to remain present, it cannot be said that such an adverse inference was wrongly drawn by the Sessions Court. Section 438 (4) of the Cr.P.C. (Maharashtra State Amendment) clearly provides that the presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail shall be obligatory at the time of final hearing of the application and passing of final order by the Court, if on an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that the Sessions Court had directed the applicants to remain present before the Court on a specific application moved by the prosecution - Since the investigation in the present case is still underway and the FIR itself was registered only on 15.05.2019, the material presently on record does indicate that insofar as the applicant in Criminal Application (ABA) No. 476 of 2019 i.e. the Chairman of the Bank is concerned, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail cannot be accepted.
The said applicant is arrested in Crime No. 181 of 2019 registered at Police Station Dhantoli, district Nagpur City, dated 15.05.2019, she shall be released on bail on the conditions imposed - application allowed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1894 - SUPREME COURT
Guilty of indulging in financial irregularities and misconduct in conduct of business - fine/penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs with suspension from trading membership of the appellant for five trading days came to be imposed - As submitted that the decision of the DAC of NSE is in violation of NSE Circular dated June 27, 2013, because, as per that circular suspending the trading is not contemplated for the violations allegedly committed by the appellant - HELD THAT:- Appellate Tribunal, has not examined this contention but proceeded to reject the appeal on the specious ground that the penalty imposed by the appropriate authority cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. The argument of the appellant was that even though the appropriate authority can suspend the trading membership of the member indulging in misconduct, it can be resorted to only when it falls within the concerned Bye-law such as Bye-law 8(a) relied upon by the respondent - which envisages that the trading member must conduct business “in a manner prejudicial to the Exchange” etc.
The penalty could not have exceeded an amount of ₹ 1 lakh or 0.1% of the value of misuse, whichever is higher. These arguments have not been dealt with by the Appellate Tribunal at all.
Resultantly, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and relegate the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal by restoring appeal No. 53 of 2017 to the file of the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai for reconsideration only on the issue of quantum of punishment awarded to the appellant. Indeed, while passing the final order, it will be open to the Tribunal to pass appropriate order with regard to the amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to order dated 27.02.2017 passed by this Court.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1893 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Violation of principles justice - clear non-application of mind - HELD THAT:- lt is for the authorities to establish before this Court that there is a possibility of imputing wrongdoing to the petitioner in the light of the admitted fact that the import was made by the third respondent-Corporation and the petitioner claims that it has no role in choosing the country from which such imports would be made.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1892 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Seeking continuation of the ad-interim relief relying upon the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS SAPNA JAIN AND ORS. [2019 (6) TMI 58 - SC ORDER] - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Apex Court noted it down that different High Courts of the Country have taken divergent views in the matter and made observation that position in law should be clarified by the Apex Court. The Apex Court had taken a note of our order dated 11th April, 2019 wherein, we granted protection to the petitioners and specifically observed that it was not inclined to interfere with the same - The Apex Court, however made it clear that the High Courts while entertaining such request in future, will keep in mind that the Apex Court by its order dated 27th May, 2019 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 4430 of 2019 had dismissed the special leave petition filed against the judgment of the Telangana High court in similar matter, wherein the High Court of Telangana had taken a view contrary to what has been held by the High Court in the present case.
Stand over to 26th August, 2019.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1891 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The balance sheet of the Respondent for 2015-16 reflects the amount claimed by the Applicant under the head 'Other Liabilities', which amounts to a written acknowledgment of the liability by the Respondent extending the limitation period. This means that the limitation period will be calculated from 31.032016 and the present application was filed before the expiry of three years from such date. Thus, the application is not barred by limitation.
Whether the share application money can be categorized as financial debt? - HELD THAT:- It is clear from a reading of Section 42 of the Act and the Deposit Rules that if the shares are not allotted within 60 days of the receipt of the money the share application money has to be refunded and of the refund does not take place within 15 days from the expiry of the 60 days' time limit, then the share application money will be treated as a deposit. On the non-allotment of shares, after the expiry of the time limit of 75 (60+15) days the share application money will be a deposit advanced to the company, which has to be returned by the company at the rate of 12% per annum from the expiry of the 60th day. The person applying for the shares will get compensation for the time vale of the share application money given by him to the company, which makes the money advanced a financial debt to be repaid by the company - In the present case the money was transmitted in 2008 and the allotment has not been made till date, thus, the money transmitted is a deposit and can be treated as a financial debt.
Whether there is a default on behalf of the Respondent in payment of the amount claimed? - HELD THAT:- This issue cannot be answered in favour of the Applicant as a perusal of the documents show that the Respondent has been ready to refund the money after it receives the required letter from the Applicant. Although the Applicant has placed on record a letter dated 03.07.2015 signed by the Applicant's representative, there is nothing to show that the said letter was actually delivered to the Respondent. Even if it was delivered by hand as claimed by the Applicant, there should have been an acknowledgment of receipt by the Applicant on the copy of the letter.
In the absence of anything to show that the delivery was actually made and that the Applicant has fulfilled all its formalities, it cannot be said that it is the Respondent's fault that the refund of the money has not been made - application allowed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1890 - ITAT AGRA
Unexplained income on account of investment in margin money of share trading besides RD Interest - Addition of investment by the assessee after withdrawing from the bank account jointly held with his father - HELD THAT:- Agricultural land was owned by the assessee’s father.However, the assessee has not claimed such an agricultural income from his father either in the earlier assessment years or in the succeeding years. Over and above the assessee’s father is neither filing return of income nor any statement of account including income and expenditure statement of working of his agricultural income has been furnished by the assessee either before Authorities below or before us so as to ascertain the correct amount of agricultural income.
Assessee has failed to produce material documentary evidence to proof cultivation of agricultural produce by way of Khasra Khatauni, source of irrigation (tube well/canal), evidence on cold storage etc. to justify the cash deposits in the aforesaid joint bank account in which even the cash deposits do not correlate with the proceeds emanating from Mandi Parishad.Therefore, the agricultural income claimed from the sale of accumulated produce of two and a half years in between March 2010 to October 2010 towards cash deposit in the bank account in anticipation to corresponding withdrawals to the agricultural operations to be carried out for earning such volume of agricultural income is rightly disbelieved by the ld. CIT(A),to demonstrate availability of cash for investment in margin money of share trading business.
Addition in respect of the accumulated interest on RD A/c - it is noticed that the aforesaid interest amount was found credited in the RD bank amount in the year under consideration by the AO. Since, the assessee failed to demonstrate on the basis of documentary evidence that the said Interest income was related to earlier years either before the authorities below or before us and therefore, we are inclined to appreciate the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue as legal and justified and confirm the addition accordingly. This ground of appeal is also rejected. Assessee appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1889 - ITAT DELHI
Exemption u/s 11 - Charitable activity u/s 2(15) - proof of charitable activity undertaken by assessee trust - income from business As applied or accumulated for application for the charitable or religious purpose of the trust - HELD THAT:- We agree with the contentions of the Ld. AR that the assessee’s case is covered in its favour by the orders of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in assessee’s own cases for three different assessment years. We would like to make a reference to the Tribunal’s order for assessment year 2009-10 wherein detailed findings have been recorded by the Tribunal. This order was upheld by the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court in[2019 (2) TMI 1616 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] - there is no bar in the charitable trust/institution carrying on business provided the conditions prescribed in section 11(4)/11(4A) of the Act are satisfied. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Krishna Warriers [1964 (4) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT] has been pleased to hold with reference to income tax Act 1922 that if the trust carried on business and the business itself is held in trust and the income from such business is applied or accumulated for application for the charitable or religious purpose of the trust, the conditions prescribed in section 4(3)(i) and fulfilled and the income is exempt from taxation.
Authorities below have grossly erred in holding that the appellant's activities in relation to production and sale of ayurvedic preparations are not incidental to its main objective as the same are commercial in nature.
We thus hold that in the present case the authorities below have failed to appreciate that the business set up and held by the appellant under trust is to sub serve the predominant charitable objects of providing medical relief education and relief to poor. Furthermore, since separate books of accounts were maintained and the entire profits are for charitable objects, the conditions prescribed in section 11(4A) of the Act, too were fulfilled. - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1888 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Depreciation on hoardings - temporary v/s permanent structure - depreciation at the rate 100% by treating these hoardings to be temporary structures - HELD THAT:- On examination of the impugned order of the tribunal [2016 (8) TMI 1555 - ITAT KOLKATA] we find that its finding that the subject structure of the respondent was temporary and not permanent was substantially derived from the findings of the tribunal in respect of the same respondent for the earlier assessment years. This finding of fact has not been challenged by the revenue in appeal or it remains untouched by any superior Court.
Appellant, could not show us any case made out by his client in the subject assessment year that there was any technological advancement or modification in the temporary structure in such a manner so as to classify it as a permanent one.
The issue as to whether the subject structure was temporary or permanent in the assessment year in question has become res judicata.
Hence, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the tribunal holding that it was so and allowing the respondent assessee 100% depreciation. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (7) TMI 1887 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction - unilateral demand of tax and interest for different periods ranging from 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 under the Odisha Sales Tax Act, 1947 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On perusal of record, more particularly the order impugned herein, it reveals that the order of re-computation has been passed without issuance of notice and extending opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The order under Annexure-2 is required to be quashed and set aside, on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice - Petition allowed.
............
|
