|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 18682 Records
-
2022 (12) TMI 1483
Denial of exemption u/s 11 - non-submission of audit report in Form 10B alongwith or before filing the ITR - non-compliance with communication u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act due to IT Website technical glitches - HELD THAT:- We note that, the ITR for the impugned AY was filed on 13/07/2018 and notice calling the audit report u/s 143(1)(a) was served on 28/02/2019 according thereby 30 days to remove deficiency by filing audit report in Form No 10B, however in the absence of any such compliance from the appellant, ITR was finally processed on 26/06/2019 denying the exemption, which the Ld. FAA upheld quoting equi-reasons.
We also note that, the assessee could not attend the communication due to IT-Website technical glitches, however has eventually filed the audit report in Form No 10B on 29/02/2020 and complied with the condition laid in section 12A(1)(b) so as to entitle for a claim of exemption envisaged u/s 11 & 12 of the Act.
In the evince of details filed at clause M2 of ITR filed on 13/07/2018, it undisputedly establishes that the appellant got its books audited u/s 12A(1)(b) of the Act from M/s S. D. Pednekar & Co which issued & furnished the said audit report on 05/07/2017 i.e. prior to filing of ITR for the impugned AY, however the copy thereof remained to be filed alongwith ITR as well in response to communication u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act on account of technical glitches beyond the control of the assessee and the deficiency came to light only upon service of demand u/s 156 of the Act.
Thus, the non-compliance with communication u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act due to IT Website technical glitches was unintentional and beyond the control of the appellant is sufficient to form a reasonable cause for non-compliance and since the procedural compliance has been duly made good by fling the audit report on record, we see no reason to deny the exemption in the present facts and circumstance, ergo we set-aside the order of both the tax authorities below and direct the Ld. AO to grant the claim of exemption in the evince of Form No 10B. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1482
Rejection of application filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - criminal conspiracy - signature on the alleged sale deed is forged - dispute is of civil nature or criminal nature - HELD THAT:- It appears prima facie that the purchaser (Vendee) might have obtained finance from AXIS Bank Ltd. for the purpose of purchasing the plot in question. The police should have investigated whether the amount of Rs. 24,08,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Eight Thousand Only) was paid by AXIS Bank Ltd. directly to the original complainant (respondent No. 2 herein). There is no clarity even in this regard. This aspect shall also be looked into while deciding the civil suit between the parties.
While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, the High Court has to be conscious that this power is to be exercised sparingly and only for the purpose of prevention of abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not, depends upon the nature of the act alleged thereunder. Whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not, has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transaction may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether the dispute which is in substance of a civil nature is given a cloak of a criminal offence.
The impugned order of the High Court is set aside - application disposed off.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1481
Carry forward accumulated business losses of the earlier years - correct year for consideration of the issue of eligibility of set off brought forward business loss against business income - HELD THAT:- The undisputed fact is that while concluding assessment the AO declared that the loss computed is not allowed to be carried forward. In our considered opinion all that the AO is required is to notify the assessee the amount of loss as computed by him. Whether the loss in any year may be carried forward to the following year and set off against the profits has to be determined by the AO who deals with the assessment of the subsequent year. It is for the ITO dealing with the assessment in the subsequent year to determine whether the loss of the previous year may be set off against the profits of that year.
As relying on the case of Manmohan Das [1965 (11) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT] no hesitation in directing the AO to expunge the concluding remark “brought forward loss is not allowed to be carry forward”. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1480
Set off of excess application of income for the subsequent years - Carry forward of the deficit/loss for trust - assessment of trust - HELD THAT:- As during the year under consideration the assessee had applied income more than 85% of its total income however, it claimed accumulation of income u/s 11(1)(a) to the extent of 15% of total income that came to a sum of Rs. 38,05,443/- however, the AO restricted the accumulation to the extent of surplus available of Rs. 20,34,215/-.
A bare reading of the section 11(1)(a) of the Act goes to prove that any income accumulated or set apart should not exceed 15% of total income. In the present case, the assessee had applied more than 85% of the income that does not mean that in excess of 85% of income, the assessee has accumulated or set apart for charitable purpose.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Matriseva Trust [1999 (3) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein as followed the judgment in the case of CIT vs Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation[1986 (7) TMI 56 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] and in the case of CIT vs Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal (1993 (11) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein as answered the questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1479
CENVAT Credit - input service or not - service availed by the assessee from Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) - HELD THAT:- The realm in which the controversy operates is after receiving the deposits from public, the assessee is under statutory obligation to insure the deposits received for conducting the bank business and extends under law services on which service tax is paid. The services provided by the assessee are not falling within the negative list. Therefore, there is relatability on a hostile consideration of business in banking between the services availed and services rendered.
The suggestion of revenue would compartmentalise the activities in an odd way only to deny the claim of CENVAT credit and we are not persuaded, firstly, by the argument now canvassed before us and secondly, upon taking note of are the applicable sections in this behalf. The payment of premium on insurance together with service tax for valid and correct reasons has been held by the larger bench in M/S. SOUTH INDIAN BANK VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX-CALICUT [2020 (6) TMI 278 - CESTAT BANGALORE] holding that The insurance service provided by the Deposit Insurance Corporation to the banks is an “input service“ and CENVAT Credit of service tax paid for this service received by the banks from the Deposit Insurance Corporation can be availed by the banks for rendering output services“.
The substantial questions raised are not tenable, and the findings recorded by the larger bench have already considered these issues - the questions raised in the appeals are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee - appeal dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1478
Non-compliance with the obligation o allotment of booked flats - During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have arrived at a settlement wherein the flats have been given to the petitioners and they are satisfied with the allotment and do not wish to prosecute the FIR any further.
HELD THAT:- Respondents states that all the respondents are satisfied with the settlement and do not have any dispute with the petitioners and have no objection to the FIR being quashed.
It is in the interest of justice it is convincing that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice. This should not be treated as a legal precedent as in this case, the proceedings are quashed as the respondent has decided to put a quietus to the matter. The Court does not see any fruitful purpose if criminal proceedings are permitted to be prosecuted any further. It is a fit case for quashing. In this view of the matter, there is no reason to continue the proceedings.
Petition disposed off.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1477
Revision u/s 263 - claim of deduction of the impugned interest on Perpetual Non-Convertible Debentures (PNCDs) - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings itself had submitted the entire facts of the case by placing reliance on various provisions of the Companies Act and SEBI Regulations and had also taken efforts to explain the meaning of the term “debentures”, “debts”, “bonds”, “shares” etc., under provisions of various Acts.
The main case of the Revenue is only that the perpetual debentures issued are akin to equity and hence, it does not fall under the ambit of borrowing and accordingly, no interest would become allowable on the said alleged borrowing. In this regard, we find that assessee had already explained the very same query before the AO at the time of assessment proceedings itself which is evident from the reply filed by the assessee which is reproduced hereinabove at the beginning of the order. Moreover, we also find that these bonds were indeed repaid by the assessee on 18/03/2021 with interest and on 11/05/2021 with interest. The evidences in this regard are enclosed and the fact of repayment of these borrowings with interest had also been duly notified by the assessee to BSE Ltd. and NSE Ltd as per the requirement of SEBI regulations.
This categorically goes to prove that it is not a case of equity and the issue of perpetual bonds is only borrowing made by the assessee. Since the said borrowing has been used for business purposes of the assessee, the interest paid thereon would be squarely allowable as deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Hence, even on merits, the action of the ld. PCIT would have no legs to stand.
Thus we have no hesitation in quashing the revision order passed by the ld. PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed
-
2022 (12) TMI 1476
Waiver of penalty - penalties on other co-noticees, when main assessee’s case is settled by the Settlement Commission - HELD THAT:- It is found that the matter was referred to a larger bench by another learned member in RAJESH VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TUTICORIN [2014 (1) TMI 1390 - CESTAT CHENNAI]. The question was referred to the larger bench in two cases by the learned members. The reason for referring the matter is that there are conflicting views expressed by different benches.
Cases in which it is held by the Tribunal that penalties against co-noticees do not survive if the main appellant has settled the matter - HIM LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CC, NEW DELHI [2016 (4) TMI 1153 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT) MUMBAI VERSUS MAHENDRA KUMAR DAREWALA [2016 (9) TMI 1011 - CESTAT MUMBAI] - RADIANT SILK MILLS (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & CEN. EX., JAIPUR [2013 (9) TMI 582 - CESTAT NEW DELHI].
Cases in which it is held by the Tribunal that penalties against co-noticees survive even if the main appellant has settled the matter - KI. INTERNATIONAL LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI [2013 (5) TMI 383 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - MAMTA GARG VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS. AND C. EX., NOIDA [2017 (2) TMI 1317 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - M/S. AV AGRO PRODUCTS LTD., M/S. GENEX FOODS PVT. LTD., SHRI ROHIT AGGARWAL, DIRECTOR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & CENTRAL GST, NEW DELHI [2020 (3) TMI 490 - CESTAT NEW DELHI].
Thus, both views were taken by different single member benches, division benches and also in cases where the two members of the bench differed and the difference was settled by a third member. In view of these legal precedents, it is found appropriate to direct the Registry to relist the matter after the decision of the larger bench. Both sides are free to mention as and when the decision of the larger bench is available.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1475
Classification of goods sought to be imported - display assembly/module - to be classified under heading 8524 or not - Sub-section (b) of section 28E of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The applicant has stated that display assembly main structure consist of cover glass, contrast enhancement film, flexible printed circuit & integrated circuit on TFT glass and back light unit. It is relevant to mention that in para 4.1 of CBIC Circular No. 14/2022-Customs dated 18-8-2022, Meity has been quoted stating that what are the constituents of the display assembly. Comparing the list of items mentioned in the circular with that of items declared to be part of display assembly imported by the applicant, it is found that these items are mentioned at serial no. b, c, h and j of the list given in para 4.1 of the above circular. It is also clarified that display unit is not equipped with components for converting video signals, decoder IC, scaler IC and any application processor.
On going through the possible headings viz 8517, 8524 etc. and GRI and HSN Explanatory Notes thereof. It is also noticed that for the purposes of heading 8524, the declaration of the applicant satisfy conditions of Chapter Note 7 of Chapter 85, thereby Display assembly/module, as described in the application for advance ruling merit classification under Sub-heading 8524 91 00.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1474
Revision u/s 263 - taxability of undisclosed expenses as declared in survey action - case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny - As per CIT income declared during the survey was also charged to tax at normal rate instead of charging at special rate at 60% as per the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act which is in violation of Section 68 to 69C r.w.s. 115BBE - HELD THAT:- We find that the case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and for limited scrutiny, AO issued necessary questionnaire about seeking details of bank accounts and other related information and evidences. The assessee in its reply, furnished such details of bank statement and other information. AO after taking such reply, completed the assessment on 18/12/2019 without any variation.
CIT in its show cause notice, identified the issue which was not the subject matter of limited scrutiny. In the show cause notice, the ld. Pr. CIT raised the issue that survey action was conducted on the assessee firm in relevant financial year and that the assessee made declaration of Rs. 1.24 crore on account of undisclosed expenses. We find that such issue was not the subject matter of scrutiny, hence, the Assessing Officer was not entitled to raise such question.
We find that in Balvinder Kumar [2021 (3) TMI 649 - ITAT DELHI] has held that “in case of limited scrutiny, AO could not go beyond reason for which matter was selected for limited scrutiny thus, it would not be open to Principal Commissioner to pass revisionary order u/s 263 on other aspects and remit matter to AO for fresh assessment.”
The Supreme Court in celebrated/ leading case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] held that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo-motu is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If one of them is absent - if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the revenue - recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of the Act.
Thus the twin condition as required to revise the assessment order is not meet out in the present case, therefore, the order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT is set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1473
Applicability of time limit prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act 1962, in case of refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) - HELD THAT:- This court is informed that the special leave petition was preferred by the appellant against the decision in M/s Sony India Pvt. [2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. The said special leave petition was dismissed by an [2016 (11) TMI 500 - SC ORDER] on the ground of delay however, the question of law was kept open - This court is also informed that the Bombay High Court has taken a different view in M/S. CMS INFO SYSTEMS LIMITED VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [2017 (1) TMI 786 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT].
This court finds no reason to differ with the aforesaid view - Appeal dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1472
Suppression of professional receipts from the patients under OPD category - assessee has shown some “Zero Receipt Patients” in IPD” indoor patient department - On analysis of disc of computer during the search action, it was noted that many patients were operated but payments made by them, are not accounted in the books of account and such patients were referred as “Zero Receipt Patients-IPD” - CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 30% of alleged suppressed receipt by taking view that only profit element of reasonable basis should be taxed - HELD THAT:- AO has granted concession of two patients in respect of other hospitals for treatment of free patients, however, no such concession was allowed in case of assessee-hospital. It is a common factor that a privately managed hospital has to treat second category of patients as free-of-cost, which may include relatives of doctors, para-medical staffs, close relatives or family friends etc., During the hearing, we also find that certain patients which were closely related with the partners of assessee-hospital.
Thus, we find that the Assessing Officer has made addition without being confronting information collected by her at the back of assessee-hospital. No show cause notice before making such addition on account of suppressed addition, therefore the addition is not justified.
We further find that allegation of suppressed income for A.Y 2008-09 is of Rs. 148,000, however, the assessee-hospital had paid the tax of Rs. 33,17,496/-and the partners had paid tax of Rs. 28,22,084/-thus total tax of Rs. 61,39,580/-was paid. Thus, we find merit in the submission made by Ld. AR for the assessee that allegation of suppress receipt of IPD patients of is not tenable. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire addition of suppressed receipt on account of IPD patients. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1471
Eligibility for BCD exemption rate of 25% vide Notification No. 50/2017-cus dated 30-6-2017 Sl. No. 524 - import of dump trucks designed for off-highway use in CKD form, with the engine and alternator, control cabinet and wheel motor (i.e., alternate technology used in place of gearbox and transmission system) in pre-assembled condition but not mounted on a chassis in a completely knocked down form - HELD THAT:- The Motor Vehicles for the transport of goods are classified under CTH 8704. Further, there is a specific entry for Dumpers designed for off-highway use under CTH 8704 10. Therefore, the Dump truck proposed to be imported as CKD kit will merit classification under the CTH 8704.
Further, the subject dump truck is not an electrically operated vehicle. The dump truck shall be built with an electrical AC drive system where power is supplied from the engine to the alternator to produce electricity and drive the three-phase induction motor. In this electrical AC drive system, the control cabinet and wheel motor play the role of the gearbox and transmission system. Hence, it shall not comprise of a gearbox and transmission system, and this would instead be replaced by the alternate technology explained above, i.e., a control cabinet and wheel motor - In the instant case, the subject dump truck proposed to be imported in CKD form shall continue to be driven by fuel only and no electrical energy is derived from any external source or from batteries to run such dump trucks. This truck does not operate solely on electrical energy to be called electrically operated vehicle.
Whether the goods imported as Completely Knocked Down (CKD) kit by the applicant contains all the necessary components, parts or sub-assemblies, for assembling a complete vehicle with engine or gearbox or transmission mechanism in pre-assembled form but not mounted on a chassis or a body assembly? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the role of a gearbox and transmission system is performed by an alternate technology in the subject motor vehicle. The dump truck shall be built with an electrical AC drive system, wherein power is supplied from the engine to the alternator to produce electricity and drive the three-phase induction motor - In this case, the function of a traditional gearbox and transmission system is being achieved through other components such as alternator, control cabinet and wheel motor, although a gearbox and transmission system - the eligibility of concessional rate should be determined on the basis of the functions and characteristics of the key components and mere fact that one of the internal systems uses an alternate technology should not impact the benefit available.
It is not mandatory to import gearbox and transmission system, in view of technological advancement leading to replacement of these parts by parts based on different technology, to qualify for the concessional rate of duty provided under Sl. No. 524(1)(b) of the Notification as long as the essential items are imported. Applicant itself has submitted that the role of a gearbox and transmission system is performed by an alternate technology in the subject motor vehicle. In order to qualify for the concessional rate of duty as provided under Sl. No. 524(1)(b) of the Notification, it is only mandatory that the product is imported in CKD form comprising the essential components, sub-assemblies, etc.; and at least one of the three key components (i.e., engine or gearbox or transmission system) is imported in pre-assembled form but not mounted on a chassis - The CKD kit proposed to be imported, as described in para 3.1 of this ruling, satisfies the test laid down by the CBEC Circular from F. No. 5281/128/97 Cus - TRU, dated 5-12-1997 that the components mentioned in this kit will bring into effect a motor vehicle.
Thus, applicant are eligible to claim concessional rate of basic Custom duty at 25% on import of dump truck designed for off-highway use in CKD form, with the engine and alternator, control cabinet and wheel motor (i.e., alternate technology used in place of gearbox and transmission system) in pre-assembled condition but not mounted on a chassis, as per Sl. No. 524(1)(b) of the Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated June 30, 2017.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1470
Levy of penalty u/s 270A - misreporting of income in case of property sold jointly by brothers - search conducted at third party - CIT(A) deleted penalty levy - HED THAT:- We observe that search was conducted at the premises of the third party and on the basis of diary seized during the course of search, certain additions were offered to tax by the assessee in order to buy peace. Since the search was conducted during the year under consideration, the accounts of the assessee were not finalised and there was still time for the assessee to file return of income. Accordingly, the addition amount offered to tax was reflected in the return of income filed by the assessee on 08-03-2018.
On a perusal of the conditions laid out u/s 270A case of the assessee does not fall under any of the provisions of section 270A of the Act. Since the search took place during the year under consideration at the premises of third party, and there was still time to file return of income, the said income in respect of on-money receipts was included in the income offered to tax by the assessee in the return of income.
Even the AO in the penalty order has failed to specify under which specific clause of section 270A of the Act does the case of the assessee fall under. CIT(Appeals) in his appellate order has analysed the non-applicability of the provisions of section 270A of the Act in the instant set of facts. Accordingly no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) deleting penalty imposed under section 270A Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1469
Money Laundering - accused in the prescribed offence or not - Sections 406, 420, 468 471 and 506 of IPC - HELD THAT:- In the given circumstances, at least there cannot be any prosecution against the present petitioner under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA Act.
Issue notice.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1468
Classification of goods proposed to be imported - Data Projector [Model (i) Optoma SA520. (ii) Optoma X400LVe, (iii) Optoma W400LVe and (iv) Optoma VV319ST] - eligibility of exemption from duties vide Sl.No.17 of exemption Notification No. 24/2005 dated 1-3-2005, as amended by Notification No. 67/2016 dated 31-12-2016 - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the projectors in question are designed for use with an automatic data processing machine. It also appears that the subject goods has got additional ports which make it capable of being a video projector, classifiable under 8528 69 00. In this regard, it may be mentioned that rule 3 of General Rules for Interpretation of Import Tariff states that, "the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description" - Though, these projectors appear to have additional features to act as video projector, however, presence of such additional features cannot dis-entitle the subject goods from classification under Sub-heading 8528 62 00.
Applicability of exemption notification - HELD THAT:- It is noted that vide SI. No. 17 of Notification No. 24/2005, as amended, all goods of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing system of heading 8471, falling under 852862 are given exemption.
The projectors in question are machines working in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine and performing a specific function other than data processing, thus the same merit classification in the headings appropriate to their respective function i.e 85286200. Moreover, subject goods are eligible for exemption from duties vides SI. No. 17 of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. dated 1-3-2005, as amended.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1467
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Suo moto disallowance of the assessee - Mandation of recording satisfaction by AO - HELD THAT:- We find justification in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the A.O.’s action in invoking the provision of Rule 8D(2)(ii) by rejecting the assessee’s contention that suo moto disallowance by the assessee warrants no further disallowances.
The assessee’s alternate claim is that the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) should be restricted only to those investments on which exempt income was earned by the assessee during the impugned year, by placing reliance on the decision of Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] is acceptable.
We uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) in directing the A.O. to recompute the disallowance only to the investments which have yielded exempt income during the impugned year. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1466
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - allegation against the petitioner is that it has received bogus entry from an entry provider one Mr Ramesh Kumar Bagri - HELD THAT:- As would be evident upon perusal of the certificate CBI has stated that the amount was neither remitted nor credited from the accounts of the petitioner maintained with it.
Insofar as the other certificate CBI makes the same assertion and goes on to confirm that the remittance was not made to the account number said to be maintained by Mr Ramesh Bagri.
As we have before us, in the very least, the certificate dated 01.08.2022, which indicates that the petitioner had not remitted Rs.1,76,00,000/- on 12.08.2015 from its bank accounts maintained with CBI, it appears that, at least at this juncture, there was no information or material available with the concerned authority to trigger proceedings u/s 148/148A(d) of the Act..
List the matter on 11.04.2023.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1465
Seeking grant of bail - Corruption - appointment of assistant teachers in Classes IX and X under the auspices of the Commission - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the charge sheet and materials collected during investigation show petitioner was the Chairman of the Commission from January, 2014 till July, 2018. Under his supervision selection process for appointment to the post of assistant teachers for Class IX and X in Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools was initiated - undeserving candidates were issued recommendation letters to attend counselling and were given appointments.
The present case involves offences under Prevention of Corruption Act and would not fall in Category A but Category D. In the said report, the Court referring to the observations in P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2019 (12) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT], inter alia, held the gravity of the offence, object of the special law and attending circumstances are to be taken note of in addition to the period of sentence. Each case has to be decided on its own merit.
In SANJAY CHANDRA VERSUS CBI [2011 (11) TMI 537 - SUPREME COURT] the Apex Court observed bail ought not to be denied merely on the sentiments of the community. A decision against the petitioner cannot be arrived at only on the score of sentiments of the community - Petitioner has been implicated in another case involving similar allegations. Enforcement Directorate has also been directed to initiate enquiry in the matter. He is in custody barely for three months.
It is not prudent to release the petitioner on bail at this stage - bail application dismissed.
-
2022 (12) TMI 1464
TP Adjustment - ALP for corporate guarantee determined by the Appellant - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the above said decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal in the case of the Appellant for the Assessment Years 2011-12 [2021 (10) TMI 822 - ITAT MUMBAI], 2012-13 [2021 (4) TMI 254 - ITAT MUMBAI], 2013-14 [2021 (10) TMI 453 - ITAT MUMBAI] and 2014-15 [2021 (4) TMI 254 - ITAT MUMBAI], we hold that corporate guarantee commission determined by the Appellant at the rate of 0.35% per cent per annum is at arm’s length not requiring any transfer pricing adjustment. Consequently, the transfer pricing additions made by the AO and confirmed by the DRP is deleted.
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - mandate of recording dissatisfaction - HELD THAT:- In the present case the dissatisfaction has been recorded, however, the same is not in accordance with mandate of Section 14A(2) of the Act as the Assessing Officer has acted in a mechanical manner based upon conjecture/surmise and has recorded dissatisfaction without having regard to the accounts of the Appellant and/or the computation of suo moto disallowance made by the Appellant u/s 14A of the Act.
The general hypothesis made by the AO fails to meet the mandate of Section 14A(2) of the Act in view of the methodical computation of disallowance furnished by the Appellant taking into the account the actual expenditure incurred by the Appellant. Accordingly, we delete the addition made by AO u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules. Thus, Ground raised by the Appellant are allowed.
........
|
9911796707
