|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 14509 Records
-
2020 (12) TMI 1053
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has placed on record the last invoice/challan dated 04.03.2016, whereas the instant petition is filed on 19.09.2019 i.e. beyond three years from the date of the last invoice. Therefore, the instant application is barred by limitation.
On perusal of the record it is found that the petitioner has claimed interest @ 18% per annum. It is found that the petitioner has failed to put on record any document in support of its claim that interest @ 18% will be levied upon the default, more so when the tax invoice is silent on such aspect, claim of the petitioner is bad in the eye of law - the petitioner has put on record certificate/statement from the bank to the effect no payment is received through RTGS/NEFT during the period from 27.08.2019 to 16.09.2019 which has no relevance with the claim since the transactions had taken place during the period from 18.12.2015 to 04.03.2016.
The application, so filed by the applicant is not maintainable - Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1052
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The Operational Creditor has produced the relevant Invoices, Statement of Account, passbook entries for the period of 30.09.2019 to 26.07.2019. All about evidence proved two facts (i) the debt of ₹ 1,25,000/- is due and payable by the Corporate Debtor to the Operational Creditor and (ii) Corporate Debtor has committed default in paying the same.
The Application filed under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is defect free - Application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1051
TP Adjustment - determination of Arms Length Price by TPO - MAM selection - TPO while bench marking proceed bench marked the transaction by using CUP as most appropriate method - assessee selected TNMM as most appropriate method to benchmark the international transaction - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012-13, which was followed in A.Y. 2011-12 held that the ad-hoc determination of Arms Length Price by TPO de-hors section 92C(1) would not be sustainable.
No tax can be levied without the authority of law as mandated by Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Similarly, the exchequer should not be deprived from its legitimate tax due. In our view, the assessee would not be prejudiced in setting-aside proceeding, if they have merit in their favour. Considering the aforesaid factual and legal discussion and the facts that the TPO has not followed the mandate of section 92C in determining ALP, therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of AO/TPO for determination of ALP of International Transaction by the method prescribed under section 92C(1) read with Rule 10AB and 10B of Income Tax Rules, 1962. Needless to order that before passing the order, the AO/TPO shall provide due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to substantiate its contention by explaining all the facts and provide necessary information and evidences to the AO/TPO. The AO/TPO is further directed to pass the order as early as possible and within six month of receipt of this order. In the result, the grounds of appeal related with the T.P. Adjustment in all years (AYs 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) are restored back to the file of AO/TPO and are treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
Disallowance of MAT credit entitlement - HELD THAT:- We direct the AO to allow MAT credit to the assessee on the basis of order for AY 2013-14 in accordance with law. Needless to order that before passing the order, the AO/TPO shall provide due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
Calculation of tax and interest - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that substantial addition, which was based on the adjustment on account of T.P. issue has been restored to the file of AO/TPO, the AO is directed to verify the fact and calculate the tax and interest in accordance with law.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1050
Addition u/s 68 - increase in share capital and share premium - HELD THAT:- The nature of receipt towards share capital is seen from the entries passed in the respective balance sheets of the companies as share capital and investments.
For proving the identity of share applicants, the assessee furnished the name, address, PAN of share applicants together with the copies of balance sheets and Income Tax Returns. With regard to the creditworthiness of share applicant, as we noted supra, this company is having sufficient fund. These transactions are also duly reflected in the balance sheets of the share applicant, so creditworthiness is proved. Even if there was any doubt if any regarding the creditworthiness of the share applicant was still subsisting, then AO should have made enquiries from the AO of the share subscribers as held in the several judgments cited above, which has not been done, so no adverse view could have been drawn. The third ingredient is genuineness of the transactions, for which we note that the monies have been directly paid to the assessee company by account payee cheques out of sufficient bank balances available in the bank accounts of the share applicant. It will be evident from the paper book that the assessee has even demonstrated the source of money deposited into their bank accounts, which in turn has been used by them to subscribe to the assessee company as share application.
As source of source is proved by the assessee in the instant case though the same is not required to be done by the assessee as per law as it stood/ applicable in this assessment year. The share applicant has confirmed the share application as well as the payments made to the assessee company, which are duly corroborated with their respective bank statements and all the payments are by account payee cheques.
We note that section 68 of the Act provides that if any sum found credited in the year in respect of which the assessee fails to explain the nature and source shall be assessed as its undisclosed income. In the facts of the present case, both the nature & source of the share application received was fully explained by the assessee. The assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicant. The PAN details, bank account statements, audited financial statements and Income Tax acknowledgments were placed on AO's record. Without doing so, the addition made by the AO is based on conjectures and surmises cannot be justified. In the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, no addition was warranted under Section 68 - we delete the addition made by the assessing officer - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1049
Maintainability of application - Appellant is aggrieved by the grounds on which the lower Authority has refused to admit the application for advance ruling - Classification of goods - Flavoured Milk - taxable at the rate of 5% under Schedule IV of the GST Act or otherwise? - HELD THAT:- An appeal can be filed before the Appellate Authority only against an advance ruling pronounced in terms of Section 98(4). In this case, there is no ruling given by the lower Authority on the question raised in the application. The application for advance ruling was not admitted and was rejected by order dated 2nd Sept 2020 in terms of Section 98(2) of the CGST Act. Such an order rejecting the application for advance ruling as inadmissible is not an order appealable before us.
In the instant appeal, the Appellant is aggrieved by the grounds on which the lower Authority has refused to admit the application for advance ruling which is that, the question on which the ruling was sought is a matter that is being investigated by the Directorate of GST Intelligence and hence the application cannot be admitted in terms of the proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act. The Appellant has assailed this reasoning and argued that it is only when the same question is being investigated by the 'concerned officer' that the provisions of the proviso to Section 98(2) will apply; that investigations conducted by any other agency will not attract the said proviso. The Appellant has gone into great length in analyzing the intention of the legislature in framing the provisions of Section 98 and has put forth the view that it is only proceedings which are pending before the 'concerned/jurisdictional officer' which qualify for rejection in terms of the proviso to Section 98(2) - the statement recorded by the DGSTI pursuant to the summons issued, deals mainly with the classification and rate of tax of the product “Flavoured Milk” - Therefore, we agree with the decision taken by the lower Authority that the application for advance ruling is inadmissible in terms of the 1st proviso to Section 98(2) of the CGST Act.
The appeal filed against the non-admittance of the application for advance ruling is not maintainable in as much as the impugned order is not an appealable order under Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1048
Maintainability of petition - effective alternative remedy of an appeal - penalty order - HELD THAT:- Against Ext.P8 order, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the appellate authority. This is more so because I do not find the impugned order vitiated by any error of jurisdiction or violation of the rules of natural justice so as to warrant an interference with the same in these proceedings. Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the appellate authority under the GST Act, the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P8 penalty order, that was passed as early as in 2019, is dismissed.
It is directed that recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P8 penalty order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks, so as to enable the petitioner to move the appellate authority in the meanwhile.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1047
Legality and validity of the Provisional attachment of all Bank Accounts - misclassification of products thereby evading payment of due GST - carbonated fruit drinks, such as, Big Cola, Big Orange Cola, Big Lemon and similar other products - HELD THAT:- According to respondent No.2 proceedings have been launched against the taxable person i.e. the petitioner under section 67 of the CGST Act to determine the tax or any other amount due from the petitioner. From the information available it had come to the notice of respondent No.2 that petitioner has three bank accounts as mentioned therein. In order to protect the interest of revenue and exercising power conferred under section 83 of the CGST Act, respondent No.2 provisionally attached the aforesaid bank accounts. Respondent No.3 i.e. the Branch Manager of the ICICI Bank was requested that no debit should be allowed to be made from the said accounts or any other accounts operated by the petitioner without the prior permission of the department.
Where the proper officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner has reasons to believe that a taxable person has suppressed any transaction relating to supply of goods or services or both or the stock of goods in hand or has claimed input tax credit in excess of his entitlement under the CGST Act or has indulged in contravention of any of the provisions of the CGST Act or the rules made thereunder to evade tax under the CGST Act, he may authorize in writing inspection of any place of business of the taxable person -
A conjoint reading of the relevant provisions of section 67 and section 83 of the CGST Act would indicate that the proper officer must have reasons to believe that the taxable person has suppressed any taxable transaction to evade payment of tax. It is not necessary for us at this stage to delve into the meaning of the expression reasons to believe employed in section 67 which has its own connotation in fiscal statutes. Suffice it to say, requirement of section 67(1)(a) is that the proper officer should have reasons to believe that the taxable person has suppressed any taxable transaction to evade payment of tax.
It is quite clear that petitioner had disclosed the details of its goods and had applied the classification which it thought was appropriate. On that basis it had filed its CGST returns and had been assessed. It is not the case that petitioner has defaulted in payment of tax as per its returns or assessment. On the other hand, respondent Nos.1 and 2 contends that it is a case of misclassification which has led to short payment of GST.
Whether recourse to section 83 is warranted at this stage has not been dealt with in the record. Merely because there is a proceeding under section 67 would not mean that recourse to such a drastic power as under section 83 would be an automatic consequence, more so when petitioner has cooperated with the investigation. That apart, section 83 speaks of provisional attachment of any property including bank account. The record is silent as to whether any attempt has been made for provisional attachment of any property of the petitioner and instead why the bank accounts should be attached. Besides, by use of the word “may” in sub-section (1) of section 83 Parliament has made it quite clear that exercise of such a power is discretionary. When discretion is vested in an authority, such discretion has to be exercised in a just and judicious manner, more so when the power conferred under section 83 admittedly is a very drastic power having serious ramifications. Such power having the potential to adversely affect property rights of persons as well as life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has to be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner.
The impugned order dated 18th/ 19th November, 2020 is stayed - withdrawal of the provisional attachment of the bank accounts of the petitioner is directed.
Stand over to 9th March, 2021 for final hearing.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1046
Direction to respondent no.2 and 3 to consider the claim of petitioner Firm who submits their claim for granting the adjustment and credit of Excise duty for the stock which was available on the date when the GST was made applicable in the interest of justice - HELD THAT:- Shri Seth, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 was requested to seek instructions and on instructions, it is submitted that on petitioner's filing a representation to the Central Goods & Services Tax Authority, the same shall be considered objectively.
The petition is disposed off with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the Central Goods & Services Tax Authority. In case, the representation is filed within a period of 15 days, the Authority concerned shall consider the representation objectively and decide the same expeditiously, however, not later than 45 days from receiving the representation. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1045
Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - There was no e-way bill accompanying the consignment. - Individual consignment (out of many) had a value of less than ₹ 50,000/- - goods detained have already been released on Bank guarantee - appellant vehemently argues that the proceedings initiated itself are without jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- Explanation 2 defines the consignment value of goods to be that declared in an invoice, a bill of supply or a delivery chalan including the goods and services tax payable with any Cess charged. Sub-Rule (1) read with Explanation 2 leads to only one inference that the consignment value has to be determined from the invoice. But when goods of the same consignment covered by multiple invoices exceed the limit of ₹ 50,000/-, necessarily there should be generation of e-way bill. Otherwise the mandate for generation of an e-way bill would be defeated and rendered redundant enabling the consignors to issue any number of bills having value below ₹ 50,000/- and consign them in one vehicle. The consignment value is that shown in the invoice. When goods of the same consignor covered by different invoices are consigned together in one vehicle; the value will be the total of that in the multiple invoices.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1044
Principles of natural justice - it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no such records of personal hearing was maintained, and at any rate no copies of the said record of personal hearing were sent to the petitioners - HELD THAT:- Inasmuch as the procedure for maintaining a record of personal hearing was a formal one that was devised to take care of the compliance with the rules of natural justice during the period when the personal hearing had to be undertaken through video conferencing, taking note of the covid pandemic situation, the respondent Appellate Authority ought to have complied with the said procedure strictly.
Inasmuch as in these cases, the said procedure was not complied, it is deemed appropriate to quash the impugned orders and direct the appellate authority to pass fresh orders after complying with the said procedure and after hearing the petitioners - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1043
Permission to withdraw the present petition - power under section 50 read with section 75(12) of Bihar Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner, under instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition reserving liberty to file a fresh petition on the same and subsequent cause of action.
Petition dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1042
Vires of Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules as amended by Notification No. 54/2018-19 Central Tax dated 9.10.2018 - retrospective effect or prospective effect - HELD THAT:- The Coordinate Bench in COSMO FILMS LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & 3 ORS. [2020 (10) TMI 1099 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] took the view that the notification No. 54 of 2018 should be made applicable with effect from 23.10.2017 and not prior thereto i.e. from the inception of Rule 97(10) of the CGST Act.
Mr. Sheth, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to Annexure – A page-20 of the paper book. It is the Notification No. 54 of 2018 dated 9.10.2018. According to Mr. Sheth, the Notification itself makes it clear that the same shall come into force from the date of its publication in the official gazette - According to Mr. Sheth, what has been observed in para-9 of the order passed in the Special Civil Application No. 15833 of 2018 needs to be re-looked, as the Department has started issuing notices indiscriminately on the premise that the Notification would apply with effect from 23.10.2017.
Let notice be issued to the respondents returnable on 24.02.2020. Till the next date of hearing, the proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 24.11.2020 Annexure – B shall remain stayed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1041
Grant of Regular Bail - wrongful adjudged input tax credit resulting in loss of tax to the Government exchequer to the extent of ₹ 2.24 crores - HELD THAT:- The condition in the impugned order with regard to the payment of ₹ 2,24,46,239/- alongwith interest is set aside and the bail bonds of ₹ 50 lakhs with one surety in the like amount are reduced to ₹ 25 lakhs which may be in the form of immovable property to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Panipat - The impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat dated 11.12.2019 is modified only to the extent above and the other conditions therein are ordered to remain intact.
Petition allowed in part.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1040
Profiteering - allegation that the benefit of reduction in the rate of tax and the benefit of Input Tax Credit which was required to be passed on to the eligible recipients as per the provisions of section 171 (1) of the Central Goods & Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, not passed on - HELD THAT:- On the issue of reduction in the tax rate, it is apparent from the DGAP's Report that there has been no reduction in the rate of tax in the post GST period, i.e. after 2017. Hence, the only issue to be examined is whether there was any benefit of ITC to the Respondent upon the introduction of GST.
The DGAP has reported that the Respondent had obtained the Commencement Certificate (CC) for the project “Golf Meadows Godrej City, Panvel (Phase-II)” on 07.09.2018 and for the project “EWS” on 11.05.2018. The DGAP has also verified that the project “Golf Meadows Godrej City, Panvel (Phase-II)” was registered on 11.10.2018 by Maharashtra RERA and the first booking in the above project was made on 02.11.2018. The DGAP has further observed that the project “EWS” was not registered under Maharashtra RERA and the Respondent had not sold any EWS unit as of 31.12.2019. The DGAP has further found that the projects “Golf Meadows Godrej City, Panvel (Phase-Il)" and "EWS" had been launched in the post-GST regime and there was no price history of the units sold in the pre-GST regime that could be compared with the post-GST base prices to establish whether there was any profiteering by the Respondent or not. In terms of the provisions of the RERA Act, bookings in the project could not happen till the registration was obtained. Since the registration was obtained for the subject projects post the introduction of Goods and Services Tax only, the provisions of Section 171 dealing with Anti-profiteering could not be made applicable to the said project in the view of the fact that there was no additional ITC that had been utilized by him, which was relevant for establishing any allegation of profiteering.
The DGAP has reported that the Respondent had neither benefited from additional ITC nor had there been a reduction in the tax rate in the post-GST period and therefore it did not qualify to be a case of profiteering - the instant case does not fall under the ambit of Anti-Profiteering provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The proceedings are dropped.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1039
Refund of the tax paid - tax paid under protest - Reverse Charge Mechanism - refund claim rejected on the ground that the appellant has not submitted the final outcome of the referred SCN whether the issue has been finally decided in favour of the assessee or not - HELD THAT:- The refund claims filed by the appellant is not covered by any of the refund category mentioned in Section 54 and claimed under any other category and there is no specific provision for refund of the tax paid under RCM.
The appellant bas mainly contested in their appeal memo that the adjudicating authority has passed the ex-parte order and had not granted any opportunity of hearing and rejected the refund claim filed by them. Further, they stated that the show cause notice dated 14.10.2019 for fixing the date of personal hearing in the matter fixed on 18.10.2019 was received on 16.10.2019, since the matters are being handled centrally from their Corporate Centre, Mumbai and not possible at a very short period of time to attend the hearing - But instead of giving some time and accepting the request of the appellant for seeking of time to submit the reply, the adjudicating authority has passed the Orders-in-Original rejecting the refund claims filed by the appellant. Thus, the appellant did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing and without considering his submission the adjudicating authority has passed the order.
The adjudicating authority while rejecting the refund claims of the appellant neither considered their first request for seeking 15 days time to submit reply to show cause notice nor granted any sufficient opportunity of time to attend the personal hearing despite their written request dated 22.10.2019 - Also, non-passing of speaking order indeed amount to denial of natural justice. Before passing of orders atleast their request for seeking 15 days time to submit their reply to show cause notice should have been considered and at least speaking order should have been passed by giving proper opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and detailing factors leading to rejection of refund claims. Such order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly set aside.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1038
Petitioner locus standi to file present petition - PIL - issuance of a writ quashing Section 194 A(3) (ixa) of Income Tax Act, 1971 which mandates to deduct tax upon the interest accrued upon the award/Compensation granted by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) by holding the same as unconstitutional and in the direct conflict with the object and spirit of the social welfare legislation i.e. Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - HELD THAT:- Settled principle of law is that an aggrieved person must approach the Court. The Standing doctrine characteristic is that a potential litigant must be injured by the action it is challenging.
In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner is a stranger having no right and/or fundamental right to any award/Compensation granted by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT).
As the petitioner is not an aggrieved person, this Court is in agreement with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for respondent, that the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the present petition.
Standing for individuals has been relaxed by Indian Courts by entertaining public interest litigation (hereinafter referred to as the PIL) in the event the person aggrieved is too poor or does not have the means to approach the Court. In fact in a PIL case, there need be no litigant, if a problem is deemed by the Court as worthy of attention. The concept of PIL is linked to the enforcement of social and economic rights in India.
Accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed. It is clarified that the petitioner may file a PIL in accordance with law in a proper format with necessary disclosures, affidavits and undertakings as prescribed. The rights and contentions of all the parties in the PIL, if any, to be filed are left open.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1037
Rectification of mistake - issue relating to claim of deduction under section 10B - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the then AR while arguing the matter before the Tribunal had submitted that the appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 was pending before the CIT(A) and the hearing for the same is also concluded though the order was not received. It was also submitted by him that fresh evidences produced by the AO which is found during the course of the survey on the assessee, were also produced before the CIT (A). It was also his argument that the issue be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication in line with his decision for A.Y. 2009-10. After considering the rival arguments made by both the sides, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication of the issue relating to claim of deduction under section 10B.
A perusal of the order shows that there is absolutely no error apparent on record. Various decisions relied by the Ld. AR are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. The assessee through this M.A. is requesting the Tribunal to modify / rectify the order of the Tribunal which amounts to review of its own order by the Tribunal which is not permissible in law. As we have held in above paras, that there is no apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal so far as the ground relating to 6 to 12 by the Revenue, the M.A. filed by the assessee being devoid of merit is dismissed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1036
Unverified purchases from related parties - verification of the fixed assets added during the year under consideration - HELD THAT:- Books of accounts and bills/vouchers were not produced before either the Assessing Officer or the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has only produced Tax Auditor Report in Form No. 3CD which contains a list of the items of fixed asset added during the year alongwith the amount, that too in respect of Visicoolers and bolltes only. Before us, also the assessee has only referred to few sample copies of the invoices for purchase of the fixed assets and no complete invoices have been produced.
In absence of bills/invoices or vouchers for the purchase of the fixed assets, purchase of those assets cannot be verified. For proper verification, it is required that each entry of fixed assets added need to be seen along with the relevant bill/invoice of purchase, installation, delivery note etc. In absence of any such details produced before us, we are not in position to verify purchase of the fixed assets - we feel it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for examining and verifying in view of our observation above.
Disallowance of operating expenses @ 10% - HELD THAT:- Without pointing out any such defect in the books of account or vouchers relating to operating expenses, the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing 10% of the expenses on ad-hoc basis by way of following earlier years and simply mentioning that expenses being of unverified, unreasonable and excessive, is not justified. The action of the Ld. CIT(A) in simply upholding the finding of the Assessing Officer following the finding of his predecessor in earlier years, without noticing the change in facts and circumstances in the year under consideration, is also not justified. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that without pointing out any defects in the bills and vouchers of operating expenses, the ad-hoc disallowance at the rate of the 10% out of the operating expenses cannot be sustained. We also note that in assessment year 2007-08, the Assessing Officer while verifying the operating expenses in compliance to the direction of the Tribunal, has not made any disallowance and accepted the claim of the assessee of the operating expenses. Accordingly, the ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2020 (12) TMI 1035
Benefit of telescoping the commission income with the income declared in the return - assessee had pleaded before the ld. CIT(A) by conceding and accepting that it earned commission income on bogus entries but further pleaded that the said commission income should have been restricted only to transactions with outside companies and not to transactions with group companies controlled by Shri Shirish C Shah - HELD THAT:- In view of the decision of this Tribunal for A.Y.2011-12 where the benefit of telescoping is granted, we direct the ld. AO to allow telescoping of commission income against income declared in the books of accounts for all the assessment years. DR agreed that this issue already is decided in favour of the assessee.
Increase in investment - HELD THAT:- As assessee company vide its written submissions before the ld. CIT(A) had submitted that amount of increase in investment for the aforesaid two years had been wrongly computed by the ld. AO and there is no increase in investment at all. On the contrary, there is only decrease in investments. The assessee filed some chart before us to drive home the point that there is effectively only decrease in investments in both the years.
In the interest of justice and fairplay, we deem it fit and appropriate that the aforesaid chart on investments filed by the assessee requires to be revisited by the ld AO and we deem it fit to remand this issue to the file of ld. AO for denovo adjudication
-
2020 (12) TMI 1034
Exemption of income u/s 11 & 12 - Whether activities of the assessee, like developing/ printing/publishing & sale of text books and other teaching material, etc. fall within the expression of ‘ education’ read with definition of ‘charitable purpose’ as per section 2 (15) ? - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2017 (5) TMI 430 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the assessee has been engaged in the activity of the education within the meaning of section 2(15) even for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 and consequently it is entitled for exemption under section 11. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow exemption under section 11 with all consequential benefits. - Decided against revenue.
............
|
9911796707
