Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2021 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 81 to 100 of 16301 Records

• 2021 (12) TMI 1418 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - receipts of the appellant are in the nature of "Royalties" within the ambit of Explanation 2 to section 9(i)(vi) and Article 12(3) of the India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ("DTAA") - HELD THAT:- We find force in the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. A similar quarrel was considered and decided by this Tribunal [2021 (10) TMI 1389 - ITAT DELHI] we direct the Assessing Officer to treat the income of the assessee as not liable to tax in India. Appeal of assessee allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 1417 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Approval of Resolution Plan - It is the grievance of the applicant that the respondent has not challenged Resolution Plan before the NCLT and despite the best of the opportunities and instead it has decided to approach NCLAT directly by way of an appeal under Section 61 of the Code, which was impermissible - HELD THAT:- There does not appear to be any further challenge before the Apex Court after once the NCLAT has approved the Resolution Plan. In wake of the settled position of the law, once the Resolution Plan is approved and the approval order has been given under Section 31(1) of the Code, which has been also confirmed by the NCLAT, the same would have an overriding effect over all other laws and force including the Central Excise Act, 1944 and therefore, the appeal is not survived.

  This court notices that the Tax Appeal is admitted for consideration of the substantial questions of law - appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 1416 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, CHHATTISGARH
  

  Classification of supply - Installation services of parts and equipment for the supply or conduct of oxygen and other gases used in hospital, homes etc; and connection of other gas-operated equipment done for Government hospital covid care ward - to be classified under SAC 995464 or not - HELD THAT:- In the instant case the applicant has informed that they are engaged in the activity of supply installation testing and commissioning of oxygen pipelines system in Government Hospitals and it has been their contention that the said activity is classifiable under SAC 995464 and they have sought ruling according the tax rate for the said SAC 995464 viz. installation service of parts and equipment for the supply or conduct of oxygen and other gases used in hospital homes etc; Connection of other gas-operated equipment done for Government Hospital covid care ward - From the documents placed, it is evident that the activity of the applicant is a supply consisting of two or more taxable supplies of goods or services or both and its combination thereof which are naturally bundled and supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business, supply and installation of medical gas pipe line being the principal supply.

  The activity of the applicant falls under Services Accounting codes (SAC Codes) 995464 which includes installation service of parts and equipment for the supply or conduct of oxygen and other gases used in hospital homes etc. connection of other gas operated equipment attracting 18% GST.

  Notification 05/2021-Central Tax (Rate), Dated 14^th June, 2021 provides for concessional tax rate exemption to the goods specified in column (3) of the Table below, falling under the tariff item, sub-heading, heading or Chapter as specified in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), in other words the aforesaid Notification provides exemption to goods viz. only to the Covid related items specified therein in the table and not to the work contract services in which the applicant is engaged in. Thus this notification is found not to be any help to the applicant.

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 1415 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of Assessment Order - Necessity of following the mandatory procedure prescribed u/s 144C and 144C(5) to C(13) and without awaiting directions from the DRP - HELD THAT:- The material on record indicates that the year 2021 being a non-leap year comprising of only 28 days and the Draft Assessment Order having been issued on 16.02.2021, the petitioner had time upto a period of 30 days i.e., upto 18.03.2021 to file objections as required u/s 144C(2)(b) - petitioner filed objections before both the DRP as well as the Assessing Officer on 16.03.2021 i.e., within the prescribed period of 30 days.

  Respondent No.1 – AO clearly fell in error in neither considering the objections nor awaiting directions from the DRP and has erroneously proceeded to pass the impugned Assessment Order dated 26.04.2021, which is clearly in violation and contravention to the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 144(C)5 to (C)13 of the IT Act and without awaiting further directions from the DRP and as such, the impugned Assessment Order dated 26.04.2021 deserves to be quashed.

  Petitioner is also right in his contention that during the pendency of the present petition, the DRP has passed the impugned order at Annexure – Q dated 24.11.2021 disposing of the case on the sole / simple ground that the matter is pending before this Court, which is clearly erroneous in as much as in view of my finding above that the impugned Assessment Order itself is illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed, the subsequent order at Annexure – Q passed by the DRP also deserves to be quashed and DRP be directed to proceed further in accordance with law as contemplated under Section 144(C)5 to (C)13 of the IT Act by considering the objections dated 16.03.2021 filed by the petitioner.

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 1414 - ITAT SURAT
  

  Assessment u/s 153C - sufficient incriminating material seized during the search action - During the search, various evidences were collected, which explained inter alia, the modus operandi of the "business of providing accommodation entries in the nature of bogus sales and unsecured loans" - HELD THAT:- Admission was given when corroborative evidence was unearthed during the course of search. All these clinching and corroborative evidences along with the statements given during the search constitute incriminating evidence against the appellant. Even the appellant, Shri Anoop Y. Jain (part of statement reproduced by AO in para 5 of the assessment order), Shri Manish S Jain and Shri Sachin Pareek had accepted the entire modus operandi during the course of search in statement recorded u/s. 131 of the Act.

  In this case, therefore, there are ample incriminating evidences/documents recovered during the course of search. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (3) TMI 108 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that statement of a third party recorded during course of search proceedings u/s 132(4), constitutes 'material on record' for purposes of section 153C of the Act. This way, ld DR reiterated the findings of ld CIT(A).

  We note that issue under consideration is squarely covered against the assessee by the judgment of Division Bench in 1, in the case of Shri Rajendra Sohan Lal Jain [2021 (12) TMI 867 - ITAT SURAT] whereby the issue relating to Commission @ 0.02%, Commission on import @0.20% and Commission on loan @ 0.50% were adjudicated by upholding the order of ld CIT(A) as held no evidence is filed by the assessee on record to prove the fact that the assessee entered into hedging contract with the Banker, the evidence found in the form of e-mail and other evidences show the facts otherwise. Therefore, the submissions made by the assessee do not inspire confidence. None of the case laws relied by the ld AR for the assessee is helpful to the assessee as there was sufficient incriminating material seized during the search action on the assessee on the basis of which it is clearly proved that the assessee is in the business of entry provider.

  Thus we dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 1413 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Maintainability of petition - Detention of goods alongwith the conveyance - detention order reflects the seller and dealer being suspicious but the order is silent on the alleged discrepancies as no reason has been given with regard to the suspicious parties - HELD THAT:- It emerges from the record that the information had been received from the controlling authority by the respondent that the said vehicle has certain discrepancies, therefore, the same was intercepted at Kamrej Toll Plaza, Surat at 12.40 pm. The driver when was asked for the documents, he provided the invoice as well as the e-way bills and it was revealed that the goods were being transferred from K.K.Traders, Kannur, Kerala to Shri Nandha Trade Mart, Gujarat. The MOV-10 and MOV-02 had been issued to the driver of the vehicle and subsequently MOV-04 was also issued for physical verification of the goods.

  From the e-way bills available, it appeared that 16 e-way bills had been generated of inward supply worth Rs. 04,79,31,650/- in the month of June, 2021. The Deputy Commissioner was communicated this and the physical verification had taken place at Shri Nandha Trade Mart, Rajkot. It was found that it has a shop of 90 sq.ft. and there is no stock available although it had purchased goods worth Rs. 4.50 Crores (rounded off). The authority therefore initiated the proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST Act. The contact number of Mr. Akhil – Proprietor of Shri Nandha Trade Mart was switched off, hence, there was a need to proceed against the purchaser of the goods.

  It also emerged that the e-way bills were generated on different vehicles i.e. TN-88-A-6772 and KL-10-BC-3796. The movement of vehicle when was verified on RFID data, it was found that from Kerala to Gujarat, the e-way bill had not matched with the RFID data. The said vehicle never travelled from Kerala to Gujarat on that particular route and hence, only billing was done without actual movement of goods. It is alleged by the respondent that this was with an intention to escape the tax liabilities. Shri Nandha Trade Mart had purchased from K.K.Traders, Karakattu Traders, Matteri Trading and Puthiyaveettil Agency.

  It was necessary to establish as to from where the purchase of goods had been made. Shri Nandha Trade Mart had not mentioned any kind of sale. The Kerala Authority had also cancelled the registration of the present petitioner on the ground that it has allegedly involved in the tax evasion. As the traders from whom Shri Nandha Trade Mart had purchased had not shown any purchases of stock and their sale of goods to the dealer of Gujarat was without their sale and purchase.

  The Court is disinclined to intervene and in absence of any breach of principles of natural justice or for that matter, with these prima facie nonacceptable details under the law, petition is DISMISSED.

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 1412 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Execution of assignment deed - company was ordered to be wound up - HELD THAT:- The Official Liquidator is permitted to execute deed of assignment-cumconveyance at Annexure D attached to the Official Liquidator Report as vetted by the advocates - Such execution of deed of assignmentcum- conveyance shall be subject to payment of Stamp duty, Registration charges and all other expenses incidental to the execution and registration thereof by M/s. Darshan Healthcare Private Limited.

  Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 1411 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Reopening of assessment - applicability of the provisions of sections 148 and 148 A of the Income Tax Act, the new provisions which have been inserted by Finance Act 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021 - According to the petitioner, the Financial Act has substituted the provision of section 147 with effect from 01.04.2021 and the time limit has been set to issue the notice under section 148 which is extended by Notification No.20 of 2021 and 38 of 2021, there cannot be two parallel provisions applicable simultaneously - validity of Notification No.20 of 21 issued by the CBDT by purportedly exercising the powers conferred by section 3 (1) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.

  HELD THAT:- Issue NOTICE to the respondents, returnable on 03.01.2022. Pleadings be completed and office of learned Additional Solicitor General shall be served through e-mail as well as speed post.

  As the petitioner has made out a prima facie case, ad-interim order in terms of paragraph 7(d) till the returnable date.

  Direct service is permitted. Service be effected directly by the petitioner through speed post. Soft copy shall be served upon the offices of the learned senior advocate, Mr.Manish Bhatt and learned Additional Solicitor General of India.

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 1410 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Reopening of assessment - applicability of the provisions of sections 148 and 148 A of the Income Tax Act, the new provisions which have been inserted by Finance Act 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021 - According to the petitioner, the Financial Act has substituted the provision of section 147 with effect from 01.04.2021 and the time limit has been set to issue the notice under section 148 which is extended by Notification No.20 of 2021 and 38 of 2021, there cannot be two parallel provisions applicable simultaneously - validity of Notification No.20 of 21 issued by the CBDT by purportedly exercising the powers conferred by section 3 (1) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.

  HELD THAT:- Issue NOTICE to the respondents, returnable on 03.01.2022. Pleadings be completed and office of learned Additional Solicitor General shall be served through e-mail as well as speed post.

  As the petitioner has made out a prima facie case, ad-interim order in terms of paragraph 7(d) till the returnable date.

  Direct service is permitted. Service be effected directly by the petitioner through speed post. Soft copy shall be served upon the offices of the learned senior advocate, Mr.Manish Bhatt and learned Additional Solicitor General of India.

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 1409 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - assumption of jurisdiction itself is bad in law - reopening as beyond a period of four years - HELD THAT:- This is purely a question of law which arises for consideration as the reopening is beyond a period of four years and the reasons recorded do not, in any manner, say that there was anything that had been done on the part of the petitioner – assessee which has led to the income escaping the assessment. In absence of failure disclosed fully and truly all material facts, any reopening beyond a period of four years from the end of the assessment year 2014-15 is unsustainable. There is no whisper of the failure of the part of the petitioner of the true and full disclosure in the reasons which have been furnished and therefore, the petitioner has to be considered as a victim and with that being clear in the mind of the revenue also, this notice has been issued, and hence, this requires indulgence.

  The present petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 1408 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Recovery proceedings - effect of moratorium on proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and on Section 75 (1) of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of Section 14 of the IBC will clearly indicate that there is a complete/total embargo/bar to initiate and continue proceedings against the petitioner before any other authority including the respondent-authority also during the pendency of proceedings before the NCLT and appeal(s) to be filed against the same, if any, when the moratorium/CIRP is in force and has not been lifted; it is relevant state that neither the words 'proceedings' nor 'authority' have been defined under the IBC and consequently giving the said words their plain grammatical meaning, the only inference that arises from a reading of Section 14 would be that the said provision is an all pervasive and omnibus provision which includes and encompasses proceedings initiated by the respondent-department against the petitioner also.

  It is also relevant to state that in P. Mohan Raj's case [2021 (3) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT], a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court has categorically held that the moratorium provision contained in Section 14 of the IBC would include proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act also and by token of the same reasoning, proceedings initiated by the respondent under the GST Act would also attract the embargo contained in Section 14 of the IBC.

  Insofar as the contention urged by the respondent - state with regard to proceedings to be initiated later by the respondent against the petitioner as being barred by limitation is concerned, the said contention cannot be accepted in view of the non-obstante clause contained in Section 60 (6) of the IBC which excludes the entire period during which the moratorium is in force; so also Section 75 (1) of the GST Act also excludes the entire period from 29.09.2021 onwards when this court passed an order of stay up to the date of completion of the CIRP and lifting of the moratorium and as such, even this contention urged by the respondent cannot be accepted.

  All proceedings pursuant to the impugned notices, intimations, orders, etc. issued/passed by the respondent against the petitioner are stayed/suspended/kept in abeyance till disposal of the proceedings before the NCLT, Bengaluru - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 1407 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Allowable Revenue expenses u/s 37 - Business loss on account of permanent diminution in the value of the investment made in the equity shares in one of the subsidiaries of the assessee in USA - According to the AO this loss was not allowable u/s 37 since the expenditure could not have been considered as a revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- Tribunal relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts noted that under similar circumstances the expenditure incurred by the company were allowed. This was on the basis that the assessee company in order to expand its business world wide had setup subsidiaries in other countries. The investment made in such companies was seen as revenue expenditure since the purpose behind making the investment was only for expansion of the business. Applying this logic to the assessee in the present case, the Tribunal was of the opinion that such investment being in the nature of revenue expenditure was to be allowed under Section 37 of the Act.

  Having perused the order passed by the AO and by the tribunal and having heard learned counsel for the revenue, we find no error in the view expressed by the tribunal. As noted, the assessee had made investment in its subsidiary company in order to expand its business with a view to earn higher profit. The investment was thus driven by business expediency. The tribunal therefore committed no error - No question of law arises.

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 1406 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Bogus LTCG - Addition u/s 68 - penny stock purchases - exemption u/s 10(38) denied - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- After due consideration of the findings of the learned CIT(A), we do not find any error in it. The shares were purchased long back in 2000-2001 and sold after retaining them for more than 10 years. There is nothing with the Assessing Officer to treat it as a bogus investment to earn profit in a short span of time. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue is devoid of any merit and, accordingly, it is dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 1405 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Abuse of dominant positions - sale of electricity in the relevant market within the meaning of section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Competition Act, 2002 - whether a prima facie case is made out by the 3rd respondent for initiation of proceedings under the Competition Act or not? - whether there is any scope for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission to conduct an investigation or impose penalty on the TANGEDCO under the provisions of the Electricity Act or not? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Competition Commission of India, considering the allegations raised by the 3rd respondent against the writ petitioner, formed an opinion that it is evident prima facie for the purpose of entertaining a complaint under Section 4 of the Competition Act and ordered for an investigation by the Director General and issued a notice to the TANGEDCO to submit their objections - The impugned notice categorically states that the Commission after considering the available information, is of the opinion that a prima facie case exists and has directed in its order dated 08.10.2013 that investigation be made in the matter by the Competition Commission of India. Thus, in order to enable the Directorate to investigate the matter, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 41(2) read with Section 36(2) of the Competition Act, the informations along with supporting documents were sought for from the writ petitioner/TANGEDCO.

  In the present case, perusal of the allegations raised by the 3rd respondent would reveal that there is a prima facie case that the TANGEDCO/writ petitioner enjoys dominant position in respect of electricity in the State of Tamil Nadu. This factum is not disputed. When the writ petitioner/TANGEDCO is in dominant position, the allegations set out in the complaint indicates certain abuses and therefore, the said abuse of dominant position warrants any further action or not, is to be investigated and all appropriate proceedings are to be allowed for the purpose of forming a final opinion - This Court is not inclined to step-in to the nature of the allegations or its veracity or otherwise, which is yet to be investigated by the Director General under the provisions of the Competition Act. The allegations, which all are not yet investigated by the competent authority, it would be unnecessary for the Court to appreciate such allegations or made a finding, which would cause prejudice to either of the parties, either to proceed with the investigation or to form an opinion for initiation of further actions under the provisions of the Competition Act or to refer the matter to the Electricity Regulatory Commission under the Electricity Act by invoking Section 21-A of the Competition Act.

  Once an anti-competitive practices are brought to the notice of the Competition Commission of India by way of complaint and such allegations are falling under Section 4 of the Competition Act, then the Competition Commission of India is empowered to conduct investigation and form a final opinion for the purpose of initiation of actions. In the present case, the Electricity Act does not provide any power to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission to conduct investigation, more specifically, with reference to the allegations of abuse of dominant position, which is a specific provision under Section 4 of the Competition Act.

  In the present case, the notice issued to the writ petitioners, calling upon to furnish the informations and documents to conduct investigation is under challenge. Undoubtedly, it is in premature stage, wherein, the authority competent yet to form final opinion with reference to the allegations of abuse of dominant position as contemplated under Section 4 of the Competition Act. When the Competition Act provides jurisdiction to the authorities to entertain complaint, more specifically, when there is no such investigating power contemplated under the Special Act, then there is no impediment for the Competition Commission of India for entertaining a complaint in the present case submitted by the 3rd respondent and thus, there is no infirmity or perversity. Thus, the case on hand is not a fit case for the purpose of quashing the notice. Contrarily, the writ petitioner is at liberty to avail the opportunities provided under the provisions of the Act by the respondents 1 and 2 and defend their case.

  This being the factum established, the writ petition is not only premature, but not entertainable as the challenge made is a notice issued, providing an opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend their case under the provisions of the Competition Act, 2002. The writ petitioner is at liberty to submit their explanations or objections along with the informations and documents to the respondents 1 and 2 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such materials, informations, explanations from the writ petitioner, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to proceed with the investigations, by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner/TANGEDCO and conclude the investigation and all further proceedings within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitioner is directed to co-operate for the investigation for early disposal of the case.

  The writ petition stands dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 1404 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Seeking provisional release of goods - vehicle was seized by the 3rd respondent alleging that the vehicle was imported to India in violation of the Customs Act, and for alleged non payment of customs duty - HELD THAT:- Having considered the submissions as well as the spirit of the order No.S/26-Misc.938/2021- 22/Grp.5(F.I.V) JNCH dated 26.11.2021, this Court is of the opinion that, in view of Ext.P3 and in view of the seizure of the vehicle from petitioner's possession, petitioner can be treated as the owner for the purpose of payment of the amount demanded under the provisional release order. Accordingly, petitioner is permitted to comply with the conditions directed in order dated 26.11.2021 and on such compliance, the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner, to enable him to carry out the registration of the vehicle in his name.

  This writ petition is disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 1403 - ITAT BANGALORE
  

  TP Adjustment - comparable selection - functional dissimilarity - HELD THAT:- As assessee in engaged in the business of provision of Software Development Services (SWD services) and in development, design and implementation of software programmes. Assessee also acts as consultant on matters relating to IT enabled services to its wholly owned holding company, thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to deselected .

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 1402 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Levy of penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Levy of personal penalty on Director - fraudulent availment of cenvat credit without receipt of the inputs - HELD THAT:- it is clear that since the appellant company has fraudulently availed the credit without receipt of the goods, it is not possible without the knowledge of the Director, therefore, the Director is directly involved in the fraudulent availment of credit by his company. Therefore, he is correctly liable for penalty under Rule 26.

  However, the penalty from Rupees Two Lakh to Rupees One Lakh.

  Decided partly in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 1401 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  

  Revocation of cancellation of registration - Revenue is ready to consider the application of the assessee - HELD THAT:- the delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules (CGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee and penalty due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 1400 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Deduction of marketed-to-market loss - unexpired/unmatured for forex derivative contracts - Whether instruction given by CBDT dated 23.03.2010 can have a retrospective effect thereby negativity the effect of the judgement? - AO held that fees receivable in foreign exchange have been duly hedged by way of taking forward contract and such loss claimed by the assessee is a notional loss and contingent in nature - mercantile system of accounting on regular basis and the loss was recognised in its books of accounts, which is deductible under Section 37[1] - HELD THAT:- As on perusal of the circular, we find that it is not a possible direction by the Board to the AO rather Board under law cannot issue any such possible direction as the settled legal principle. AO is an independent authority and none can dictate him as to how and in what manner he is to complete the assessment. Conscious of this legal position, the Board in the instruction dated 23.3.2010 had stated that the Assessing Officer may follow the guidelines given in the said instruction. This is one more indication to say that the Assessing Officer is not bound over the instruction given by the Board.

  Thus, the only contention of the revenue appears to be based upon instruction issued by the CBDT which cannot override a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. That apart, it is rather doubtful as to whether such instruction given by CBDT dated 23.03.2010 can have a retrospective effect thereby negativity the effect of the judgement.

  Respondent pointed out that identical issue was considered in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. [2018 (2) TMI 1789 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and the Court held that the decision of the Tribunal in so far as deleting the disallowance being notional loss on outstanding foreign derivative contracts was approved by holding that the decision is in-conformity with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Woodward Governor India [P] Ltd. & Ors. [2009 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT]. The revenue had filed a Special Leave Petition in Special Leave which was dismissed by order [2020 (1) TMI 1505 - SC ORDER] dated 17.01.2020. In the case of the same assessee, namely Suzlon Energy Limited, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd. [2020 (2) TMI 1559 - SC ORDER] approved the decision of the High Court upholding the order of the Tribunal allowing the assessee’s claim of foreign exchange fluctuation loss on mark to market basis.

  We find no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Decided against the revenue.

  ---

• 2021 (12) TMI 1399 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Revision u/s 263 - Section 115JB of the Act applicability with respect to the disallowance u/s 14A - Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance amount cannot be added to assessee's income for the purpose of computation of income under Section 115JB relying upon the decision of Vireet Investment (P) Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] and also holding that issue of debatable and as such the CIT ought not to have taken up for revision under Section 263 - HELD THAT:- As Respondent submits that the issue, in as much as Section 115JB of the Act whether applicable with respect to the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act, is already covered on merits and as such examining the question whether CIT (Appeals) had jurisdiction to invoke Section 263 of the Act would render academic. No substantial question of law arises.

  ---

123456789........ 816