|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 835 Records
-
2020 (7) TMI 816 - ITAT MUMBAI
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - TPO characterising the assessee as KPO - HELD THAT:- As assessee despite bringing the fact on record that Excel Infoways was excluded by DRP itself in AY 2012-13, the DRP upheld the order of TPO, without bringing material difference for the year under consideration to justify its inclusion. We have further noted that the TPO himself identify this company as back office services to its AE‟s. More over unusual business year is also not disputed by the TPO. Even otherwise this comparable was included by TPO by treating the assessee as KPO. The assessee has placed on record the annual report of this company.
We have carefully perused the annual report of this comparable company. Perusal of annual report of this comparable company shows that this company is engaged in providing business support service; IT enabled services and development of infrastructure facilities. Considering the segmental reporting of the comparable company, in our view this is not a valid comparable with the assessee which is engaged in providing non-binding investment advisory services. Therefore, we direct the TPO to exclude this comparable from the final set of comparable.
Considering the decision of Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for earlier year wherein three comparable namely Almond, Crisil and ICRA was considered as valid comparable. We have directed to exclude Excel Infoways Ltd on the basis of order of DRP for AY 2012-13 and our discussion therefore, we find that both the substantial ground of appeal are covered in favour of assessee. Considering the facts that we have allowed both the substantial ground of appeal in favour of assessee therefore, adjudication on the issue related with economic analysis has become academic.
-
2020 (7) TMI 815 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Stay of demand - Unexplained money u/s 69A - substantial credits in the bank accounts of the petitioner of demonetized notes - HELD THAT:- Both writ petitions have absolutely no merit and deserve to be dismissed in limine. The impugned order challenged has been passed by the Appellate Authority upon consideration of the merits as well as the financial and bank statements filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to pay 25% of the tax demand within a specified time frame. The order also states that if the aforesaid direction was not complied with, the stay granted would stand revoked. No reason whatsoever to interfere with the attachment of the bank account.
-
2020 (7) TMI 814 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dishonor of cheque - existence of legally enforceable debt or not - It is averred in the petition that the respondent is a stranger to the petitioner and that the petitioner never borrowed any amount as alleged in the complaint given by the respondent herein, and question of issuance of cheque does not arise - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that the grounds raised by the petitioner in this petition missed the question of facts and as such it cannot be considered for quashing the complaint by invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, this petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 813 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - Section 33(2) of I & B Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- For want of a resolution plan the CoC took a decision by 98.45% vote share of the financial creditors in terms of section 33(2) of the I&B Code. In view of the matter, there are no option but to pass the order of liquidation of the Corporate Debtor in the manner as laid down in the Chapter III of Part II of the I&B Code.
Corporate Debtor M/s. Jas Infrastructure And Power Limited having its registered office at Sector III Salt Lake City Ground Floor Kolkata-700106, in the state of West Bengal, is ordered to be liquidated - application allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 812 - ITAT INDORE
Late fees u/s 234E - processing the statement of tax deducted at source u/s 200A of the Act before the amendment was brought in w.e.f. 01.06.2015 in the provisions of section 200A of the Act - HELD THAT:- Fee u/s 234E of the Act was levied in the statements processed u/s 200A of the Act before 01.06.2015 i.e. before the amendment brought into effect from 01.06.2015 in section 200A of the Act thereby enabling the revenue authorities to raise demand in respect of levy of fees u/s 234E of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of late fees u/s 234E of the Act by the assessing officer.
Accordingly findings of CIT(A) in all these 10 appeals are reversed as we have recently taken a considered view against the revenue on earlier orders of Ld. CIT(A) wherein the identical orders by respective CIT(A) were passed and accordingly the revenue is directed to delete the levy of fees u/s 234E - Thus, common issue raised in these bunch of appeals is decided in favour of the assessee(s).
-
2020 (7) TMI 811 - ITAT JAIPUR
Non adjudication of ground by Tribunal - validity of order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench - HELD THAT:- We find that ground no. 8 challenging the CIT-A order sustaining addition u/s 68 has not been adjudicated upon while passing the order [2020 (5) TMI 79 - ITAT JAIPUR]. Therefore, the order is recalled for the limited purposes of adjudication of Ground No. 8. The Registry is directed to fix the matter to hear the arguments on merits in due course.
-
2020 (7) TMI 810 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - cross-examination of witnesses - petition filed for eschewing the evidence of a witness for not submitting himself for continuation of cross-examination - Whether the evidence of a witness, who failed to submit himself for cross examination, shall be rejected or not? - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of adjudications of the Trial Court placed before this Court, reveals that after cross examination in part on 07.09.2018, the case was adjourned for continuation of cross examination on six occasions. On all these hearings, in spite of the direction to be present, the witness failed to appear before the Court. Unless there is necessity for cross examination, the case would not have been adjourned several times. Even assuming that the elaborate cross examination was made, the evidence should have been closed on that date itself. Nobody can presume that there will not be any surprise element till closing of the evidence. Surprisingly admissions as to facts may pop up even at the end of the examination of witness.
Naturally, the defendant puts down his defense by way of written statement either denying averments made in the plaint as a whole or admitting to certain facts generally or specifically. He lets in evidence to disprove the case projected by the plaintiff and the evidentiary value of the plaint documents. When he underwent cross examination to a considerable extent, but could not complete the same due to certain unavoidable circumstances, Courts cannot reject entire evidence, but shall take into consideration its probative value, while deciding the case, more so, when the plaintiff evades or avoids and deliberately delays completion of evidence. On the other hand, a case projected by the plaintiff, shall be based on introduction of facts through plaint averments, supported by oral and documentary evidence. It can be controverted only through cross examination and the veracity of the evidence can be tested by other side.
Plaintiff being Dominus litis spearheads the litigation. Onus is more on him to prove the case, unless the burden is shifted to opposite side. In that process he must be ready and prepared and show that he is always available and willing to complete the evidence. In spite of his readiness, if it is shown that the cross examination was avoided or delayed at the instance of the opposite party, in such circumstances, probative value of the available evidence would be taken into consideration.
The conduct of the Plaintiff, after having filed the proof affidavit and marked the documents, remaining absent for cross examination will amount to denial of opportunity to the opponent to disprove the claim and render the evidence as complete one - the plaintiff in the instant case, who could not appear before the court on the ground that his employer refused to grant leave for months and in fact years together, is not entitled to any equitable treatment and his evidence cannot retained for considering its probative value. Even though it is countered by the respondent/Plaintiff that extensive cross examination has been done, it is relevant to note that the learned judge has not chosen to consider or accept the same and has not observed as such. If it is true that extensive cross examination has already been made, the matter need not have been adjourned for about seven hearings for continuation of cross examination.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 809 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH
Maintainability of Advance Ruling application - Classification of goods - Flavoured Milk - What is the appropriate chapter under the customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) under which the product Flavoured Milk can be classified as per the explanation (iv) of the Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June 2017? - HELD THAT:- The Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Visakhapatnam Zonal Unit had informed that an investigation had already been initiated against the same issue through summons dated 07-11-2019 for mis-classification of flavoured milk under HSN 0403 instead of HSN 2202 in his letter numbered F.No. DGGI/VZU/INV/GST/104/2019 dated 24-02-2020 requesting for rejection of the applicant's plea for admission for advance ruling in terms of provisions of sub-section (2)of section 98 of CGST Act, 2017.
This authority after examining the relevant proviso to sec 98(2), makes the observation that it is a fit case for rejection as the applicant approached the Authority for Advance Ruling for clarification while the case is still pending with the Revenue on the same issue i.e., with respect to the classification of the product under question.
-
2020 (7) TMI 808 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
ITAT remanding the matter back to AO - Whether the Tribunal was right in passing an order merely on the ground that the documents relied on by the Assessee was not available in the file? - HELD THAT:- Unfortunately, the Assessee, who was the appellant before the Tribunal was not present when the case was heard and he had also not engaged an Advocate, to argue on his behalf. The Tribunal records that its Registry placed a copy of the postal acknowledgement card to show that the notice has been served on the Assessee.
Assessee has filed the copies of the revenue records in the typed set of papers, and on perusal of the same, the seal of the Assessing Officer is found at the bottom of the photostat copies of the documents. Therefore, it is clear that the documents were part of the assessment file. Considering the fact that the Tribunal had proceeded ex parte on account of non-appearance of the Assessee, and though the Tribunal might have been justified by doing so, yet, considering the fact that the assessment order is of the year 2015, and the Assessing Officer has already perused the records and given relief to the Assessee, and the appeal filed by the Assessee before the Tribunal arises out of the order passed under Section 263 of the Act, this Court is of the view that the matter can be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits, after affording an opportunity to the Assessee.
Tax Case appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits.
-
2020 (7) TMI 807 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of regular bail - forged documents to create the profile of a non-existent Company and claimed GST refund - HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly, the petitioner has committed serious offence, however, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that he has been in custody since 15.06.2019 and the trial is not likely to be concluded at an early date. The petitioner is undergoing magisterial trial, thus, it is deemed it appropriate to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
The petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
-
2020 (7) TMI 806 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - Best assessment order - concessional rate of tax as per Section 3(4) of TNVAT Act - HELD THAT:- The grounds raised by the petitioner, are factually in nature and do not fall under any of the exceptions for them to over look the appellate remedy and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is settled proposition of law that barring a few exceptions, this Court will not entertainn a Writ Petition on grounds touching upon the errors on the facts. The petitioner has not raised any exceptional grounds for this Court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction and thereby interfere with the impugned proceedings. Nevertheless, since this Court is of the view that the grounds requires consideration, it would be appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned proceedings before the Appellate Authority.
The petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal as against the impugned proceedings dated 13.01.2016, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - The Writ Petition is disposed of.
-
2020 (7) TMI 805 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, CHHATTISGARH
Exemption from GST - entity registered under section 12-AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 - services provided by CREDA, scrap battery sale and sale of tender forms - applicability of GST Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28-06-2017 - HELD THAT:- Section 12A (a) read with Section 12AA (1) (b) does not confirm any right of exemption upon the appellant under Section 11, 12 and 13 of the Income Tax, 1961. Such exemption from taxation will be available only after the Assessing Officer is satisfied about the genuineness of the activities promised or claimed to be carried on in each financial year relevant to the assessment year and at the provision of law acted upon - The exemption under Section 12A / 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not cover all incomes or activities of the appellant. The exemption under said provisions are admissible based on the nature of activity and source of such incomes. Hence, exemption under CGST Act, 2017 on income is admissible only if the same is towards any charitable activity.
In the instant case, CREDA implements various schemes relating to solar energy, wind energy, mini micro hydel, biomass, biogas and solid waste management. Some of the major activities include sour sujla yojna, solar drinking water pumping scheme, saubhagya yojna, solar community irrigation scheme, solar high mast, saur shakti yojna, solar on grid and roof top scheme, solar cold storage scheme, solar highmast, solar water purification, solar electrification of Government Buildings, solar water heating systems, National biogas and manure management programme, solar rural electrication/majaratola scheme, energy conservation programme, energy education park etc. The above schemes are funded by the grants received from the Central Government and State Government. CREDA creates empanelment of systems integrators, vendors and contractors to work as channel partner for implementing various solar photovoltaic/solar thermal applications in market mode in the state. The system integrator shall be the agency for integration and installation of Solar PV/Solar Thermal Systems - The contactors means civil and electrical contractors to be engaged for carrying out various small construction and repair civil works and works of laying of power distribution network at various sites as per requirement of CREDA.
For the schemes funded by the grants received from the Central Government and State Government CREDA, the appellant creates empanelment of systems integrators, vendors and contractors to work as channel partner for implementing various solar photovoltaic/solar thermal applications in market mode in the state of C.G and further the aforesaid activities are being undertaken by the integrators, vendors, contractors. Further for implementation of these schemes, the appellant receives consideration for the allied services rendered by them from their clients / channel partners, in the form of Registration Fees, Supervision / Service Charges, Processing Fees, RVE CONNECTION Charges, Processing Fees (Sour-Sujila), Entry Fees to Energy Park, Penalty Charges Received and RE issuance Charges. This apart they also receive consideration for activities such as Scrap battery sale and from sale of tender forms. Thus the said activities of CREDA the appellant, per se cannot be merely or primarily for the preservation of environment so as to qualify being considered under clause (r) of para 2 of the said Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
The aforesaid activities of the appellant cannot he treated as charitable activities as envisaged under the statute, as the above mentioned fees/ charges are being collected from the channel partners/ contractors/consumers as a consideration for tender work/supply of services, provided to them - the said supplies being not covered under the definition of charitable activities as envisaged, the impugned services / supply of goods rendered by the appellant are not covered under Sr.no. I of Notification No. 12/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017
-
2020 (7) TMI 804 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - HELD THAT:- While admitting the Writ Appeal., the court ordered that there shall be an order of ad-interim stay till 03.08.2020. Notice.
Call on 03.08.2020.
-
2020 (7) TMI 803 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, ANDHRA PRADESH
Input Tax Credit - GST paid on goods and services used as inputs in execution of "Works Contracts" - execution of Road work contracts to Government Engineering Departments - on which type of goods/ services the ITC is not eligible? - blocked credit under Section 17 (5) (c) or Section17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- As described in the agreement copy submitted by the applicant, it is evident that the applicant is engaged in the activity of construction (reconstruction) of roads for the Engineering Department, GoAP in which the following predominant goods and services are incorporated in execution of the works - it is evident that the nature of activity undertaken by the applicant is a composite supply involving both goods and services used for construction /reconstruction of roads, which is an immovable property and therefore satisfies the definition of "Works Contract Service" as defined under Section 2 (119) of the CGST Act, 2017.
The service of Works Contract Service (WCS) provided for the construction of a "road" is liable to GST © 12% (6°/o CGST + 6°/o SGST) as per SI. No. 3 (iv) (a) of Notification No.11/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28-6-2017 as amended. There is no restriction on availment of ITC in the said Notification.
Eligibility of the applicant to claim input tax credit in respect of the supply of Works Contract Service - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the inputs and input services of the applicant arc used in the course or furtherance of business i.e., works contract business and the said works contract service is a taxable service under GST and liable to tax at the rate of 12%. At this juncture it is made clear that compliance with the provisions of Section 16 (2) is a matter of fact and procedure and the applicant is to comply with the same to be finally eligible for ITC. This procedural compliance is not being challenged here and hence not commented upon by this Authority. Having said that, it is noted that the applicant is a Registered Taxpayer under the GST law, he is engaged in the provision of a taxable service (works contract service) in the course of business. As such, the applicant satisfies the basic requirements of Section 16 and is entitled to Input Tax credit (ITC) in general, of course subject to the compliance with the other procedural requirements mentioned.
Whether the ITC sought to be availed by the applicant is "Blocked" under Section 17 (5) (c) or Section17(5)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017? - HELD THAT:- It is clearly evident that what is blocked Under Section 17 (5) (c) is the ITC of tax paid on the Works Contract service when sought to be availed by the Principal (i.e., Engineering Departments). This is not the case in this appeal. The applicant in this appeal seeks a ruling on whether he can avail credit on goods and services used to provide Works Contract Service to the Principal - there is no bar under Section 17 (5) (C) to prevent the applicant from availing ITC on goods and services used in supplying Works Contract Service.
The applicant, a registered person under the GST law, engaged in the business of Works Contract Service, liable to GST at the rate of 12% vide Notification No.11/2017-CT(Rate) dated 28-6-2017 as amended, and where no restriction on availment of ITC is prescribed therein, is also not affected by the restriction under Section 17 (5) (C) and Section 17 (5) (d) of the CGST Act, 2017 and is therefore entitled to credit on the inputs i.e, goods and services used for providing the output service of Works contract service for construction of roads for the State Government Departments - the original order of the AAR is upheld.
-
2020 (7) TMI 802 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - Section 33(1), 33(2) & 34(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- The Corporate Debtor was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process on 26.04.2019. Even after, multiple extension for submission of EOI no concrete proposal has come. The Committee of Creditors in its 6th meeting has passed a Resolution for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor with requisite majority.
The Corporate Debtor needs to be liquidated - Application allowed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 801 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE, UTTARAKHAND
Levy of GST - hire charges of storage of agriculture produces - storage of exempted goods under the GST Act - Whether the tax is applicable on the same rate or different rates - HELD THAT:- On perusal of legal provisions, it is found that loading, unloading, packing, storage or warehousing of agricultural produce is exempted from GST. It is also found that Agricultural produce in the notifications has been defined to mean "any produce out of cultivation of plants and rearing of all life forms of animals, except the rearing of horses, for food, fibre, fuel, raw material or other similar products, on which either no further processing is done or such processing is done as is usually done by a cultivator or producer which does not alter its essential characteristics but makes it marketable for primary market" - further, in terms of circular dated 15.11.2017, the storage/warehousing of goods viz pulses, jaggery, etc were taxable but with the introduction of entry 24B in the Exemption Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended from time to time), storage/warehousing of pulses, jiggery, fruits, nuts & vegetables are exempted from GST w.e.f 01.10.2019.
The applicant is engaged in rendering services by way of providing storage/warehousing facilities to variety of goods and in terms of legal provisions, the rate of GST for storage/warehouse of goods is 18% - the rate of tax is same for all goods stored.
-
2020 (7) TMI 800 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, UTTARAKHAND
Classification of services - rate of tax to be levied by the sub-contractor to main contractor for original work contract pertaining to Government entity - applicability of N/N. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the notification, it is found that the work contract services in respect of construction/ widening of road provided by the applicant to his main contractor is covered under entry at Serial No. 3(iv) of the said notification. It is also found that before amendment vide notification dated 25.01.2018, specific entry on rate of services provided by the sub-contractor to main contractor were introduced, the activity of the applicant was remain covered under the scope of Serial No. 3(iv) of the Notification No. 11/2017 (as amended), which provided the rate of GST @ 12% on the services supplied by way of construction of road.
Thus, the services provided by the applicant as sub-contractor to principal contractors continues to be covered under the Serial No. 3(iv) of the Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated (as amended from time to time).
Further Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Maharashtra in the case of IN RE: M/S. SHREE CONSTRUCTION [2019 (3) TMI 1567 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING MAHARASHTRA] and and Authority for Advance Rulings, Punjab in the case of IN RE : S.P. SINGLA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. [2019 (10) TMI 315 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING - PUNJAB] on the same issue has passed the ruling that services provided by the sub-contractor to main contractor is covered tinder Serial No. 3(iv) of the Notification No. 11/2017 -Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended from time to time) and attracts GST @ 12%.
-
2020 (7) TMI 799 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Adjournment of hearing of the present appeal - HELD THAT:- At joint request of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the hearing of the present appeal and the applications is adjourned.
List on 22.09.2020.
-
2020 (7) TMI 798 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
Entertainment of claim by RP which is time barred - seeking direction upon the RP to look into the issue - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the record, it is found that the Application is filed by the erstwhile Director of the Corporate Debtor i.e. Neesa Leisure Limited.
RP is an appointee of the Court and he has to collate all the information and submit the same before the COC. The COC based on its commercial wisdom is to decide the matter - there is no merit in the instant application and hence, dismissed.
-
2020 (7) TMI 797 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - seeking time for filing of C-Forms in order to avail concessional rate of tax on inter-State sales - HELD THAT:- The matter is remitted back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration; the petitioner is granted six weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to submit relevant documents and file objections to the show-cause notices.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
........
|
