|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 163774 Records
-
2024 (5) TMI 166 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Validity of Re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 - Earlier the notice for Assessment u/s 153A/C was issued - denying deduction u/s 80IB - petitioner’s case that it was not subjected to search and seizure action - HELD THAT:- Section 147 provides for a clear bar that where an income, which is subject matter of any appeal, reassessment of such income is not permissible. The reason to believe escapement of income provides “Notice u/s. 153A/C of the IT Act, 1961 was issued. During the year under consideration the assessee has shown that the project is completed and in its P&L A/c. credited to the total sale consideration and entire profit was claimed as deduction u/s. 80IB (10). AO has made addition on account of deduction in WIP and denied the deduction u/s. 80IB (10) as project is not as approved project in the hands of the assessee because the commencement certificate is not issued to Mr. Harshad Doshi nor his AOP Poonam Builders. Secondly the first approved plan is dated 27.11.1997 which is before 1.10.1998. Thus by no means, the assessee is eligible to claim the benefit of deduction u/s. 80IB (10)"
Thus Escapement of income due to claim of deduction under Section 80IB (10) was certainly a subject matter of appeal and admittedly so and, therefore, in our view, on this income reassessment is not permissible. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. [2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] Revenue could initiate reassessment proceedings subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in Sections 147/148 of the Act, i.e., so long as it is not hit by the third proviso to Section 147 of the Act. Reopening notice set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (5) TMI 165 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - tax relating to ‘retention money’ - tax paid on more than one occasion, and claims its refund under Section 154 - HELD THAT:- As the authority has perused the record and on the basis of record, he gave a finding that assessee has offered tax on ‘excess’ retention money. Thus, no elaborate arguments are needed to establish the error as respondent No.2 himself found the same from the record about the payment of tax in excess on the ‘retention money’.
As decided in Nirmala L. Mehta vs. A. Balasubramaniam, CIT [2004 (4) TMI 43 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Bombay High Court emphasized that no ‘estoppel’ can arise against the statute. Article 265 of the Constitution of India expressly lays down that taxes can only be levied or collected through the authority of law. Hence, ‘acquiescence’ cannot deprive a party of rightful relief when taxes are levied or collected without legal authority.
Also in Smt. Sneh Lata Jain [2004 (4) TMI 579 - JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT] once it is found that the petitioner has no tax liability, the respondents cannot be permitted to levy the tax and collect the same in contravention to Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which provides a constitutional safeguard on levy and collection of tax. It is true that this Court is not to act as Court of appeal while exercising the writ jurisdiction, but at the same time where the admitted facts disclosed non- exercise of jurisdiction by an adjudicatory authority and a citizen is subjected to tax not payable by him, interference by this Court is warranted.
As in our judgment, respondent No.2 has erred in holding that the error shown above does not fall within the ambit of ‘error apparent on the face of record’ and consequently, cannot be corrected under Section 154 of the Act. The view taken by the learned respondent No.2 is hyper technical in nature and runs contrary to the scheme flowing from Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
So far the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of MS Educational and Welfare Trust [2022 (3) TMI 901 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT] is concerned, it is noteworthy that this Court opined that the power of rectification of an order of assessment under Section 154 of the Act lies within a very narrow compass. As clearly held that the order to be rectified must be an order which reflects ‘error apparent on the face of record’. Since we have held that the error in the instant case is indeed of that character, the said judgment will not improve the case of the respondents.
Consequently, the Writ Petition stands allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to undertake exercise of return of excess tax on ‘retention money’ and pass appropriate order and return the requisite tax money to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of production of copy of this order.
-
2024 (5) TMI 164 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Validity of Assessment Order u/s 143(3) once the Resolution Plan is approved under the Code - CIRP proceedings under IBC - Effect of Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT - HELD THAT:- Since the Resolution Plan expressively provides that no person shall be entitled to initiate any proceedings or inquiry, assessment, enforce any claim or continue any proceedings in relation to claims so long such result to a period prior to the Effective Date of the Resolution Plan, i.e., 10th November 2022 impugned notices are bad in law.
Further, the impugned notices are bad in law also because respondents failed to take into account that after approval of the Resolution Plan by the NCLT, a creditor including the Central Government, State Government or local authority is not entitled to initiate proceedings on the Resolution Applicant, in relation to claims which are not part of the Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT.
Pertinently, respondents had not submitted any claims to the IRP, as required under the Code, despite the public announcement being issued by the IRP, as prescribed under the Code.
The impugned notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by Respondent No. 1 and the consequential impugned notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act by Respondent No. 2 and all subsequent communications issued by Respondent No. 2 pursuant to the aforementioned impugned notices are bad in law since assessment and inquiry under the Act is sought to be initiated in gross violation of provisions of the Code in as much as it relates to a period prior to the Effective Date.
The impugned notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act and the impugned notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act and all subsequent actions undertaken pursuant to the impugned notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act are bad in law as no proceedings can be initiated against petitioner for a period prior to the Effective Date. Pertinently, the Resolution Plan provides that new claims, disputes, litigations or other judicial or administrative proceedings (including assessments) etc., will be deemed to be barred and shall not be initiated or admitted against Petitioner in relation to any period prior to the Effective Date.
The approved Resolution Plan clearly provides that any claim and/or liability pertaining to the period prior to the Effective Date (i.e., 10th November 2022) stood extinguished and/or settled in terms of the Resolution Plan. The NCLT approved the Resolution Plan on 14th October 2022, which is binding on all stakeholders of petitioner including respondents. Reassessment proceedings set aside.
-
2024 (5) TMI 163 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
TDS u/s 194I - deduction of TDS on the amount payable as “Transit Rent”, by the developer/builder - HELD THAT:- The ordinary meaning of Rent would be an amount which the Tenant / Licensee pays to the Landlord / Licensor. In the present proceedings the term used is “Transit Rent”, which is commonly referred as Hardship Allowance / Rehabilitation Allowance / Displacement Allowance, which is paid by the Developer / Landlord to the tenant who suffers hardship due to dispossession. Hence, ‘Transit Rent’ is not to be considered as revenue receipt and is not liable to be tax, as a result there will be no question of deduction of T.D.S. from the amount payable by the Developer to the tenant. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 162 - ITAT DELHI
TP Adjustment - adjustment made by the AO u/s 92BA r.w. Section 92CA r.w. Section 80IA(10) is in question which has the effect of reduction of quantum of deduction u/s 80IC/80IE - existence of arrangement between the eligible units and AEs merely on the basis of higher operating profits of the eligible units - HELD THAT:- The assessee in the instant case has attempted to demonstrate that the transaction between eligible unit and AEs were carried out on market price by producing the bills and tabulations in the shape of additional evidences. As noted in the preceding paragraphs, the primary onus was on the AO to call for such documents as may be considered necessary to scrutinize whether higher profits in eligible units are on account of any arrangement per se.
AO has not discharged such onus but has made bald allegation on the grounds of relatively higher profits earned by the eligible units vis-à-vis non eligible units.
As greatly assisted on behalf of the assessee to gather understanding that the transaction with connected entities are at market price. When seen in totality, we are inclined to agree with the plea of the assessee on first principles that rigours of Section 80IA(10) are not applicable in a case where neither the AO has discharged its onus to establish existence of arrangement nor such arrangement is demonstrable on factual analysis.
The findings of the TPO/AO holding existence of arrangement between the eligible units and AEs merely on the basis of higher operating profits of the eligible units cannot be upheld on first principles in the instant case. The assessee has placed additional evidences to rebut the unsupported finding of the TPO/AO to dislodge existence of arrangement and transactions between the eligible units and AEs to be at market price.
Hence, to the limited extent of verification of additional evidences, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of the AO. AO shall be at liberty to verify the correctness of the claim of the assessee that transactions of purchase undertaken by the eligible units with its AEs are at ordinary and comparable market price to justify ALP.
The assessee shall also be entitled to benchmark transaction of the eligible unit by applying CUP method as most appropriate method to justify lack of any arrangement contemplated under Section 80IA(10) of the Act. To this limited extent, the matter is set aside to the file of the AO. The assessee shall be entitled to adduce such evidences as may be considered expedient to support its plea on comparability of purchase transactions carried out by eligible units with its AE viz. uncontrolled transactions.
As regards sale transactions by eligible units with its AEs, we do not consider it necessary to beset with further burden of proof on assessee towards aspects of ALP having regard to nominal percentage of sale transactions carried out with AEs owing to miniscule effect, if any, on the overall profitability when seen in the context.
AO shall pass a reasoned order towards presence of ‘arrangement’ contemplated u/s 80IA(10), if any while determining the issue. AO may make reference to TPO for determination of ALP of the controlled transactions as per CUP method in the event the prima facie existence of ‘arrangement’ is discovered by him in the factual matrix.
Disallowance of deduction u/s 80G - deduction on CSR expenses - deductibility of donations and contributions to Funds/bodies registered u/s 12A of the Act on the counters of s. 80G where CSR contributions are not eligible for deduction under s. 37 of the Act - HELD THAT:- The exclusions provided in 80G (2)(a)(iiihk) & (iiihl) qua certain specific contributions such as ‘Swachh Bharat Kosh’ and ‘Clean Ganga Fund’ rather exhibits the legislative intent loud and clear. Thus on a plain reading, it is evident that the assessee would be ordinarily entitled to deduction on contributions made to funds and bodies registered u/s 12A of the Act regardless of stipulations made in s. 37(1) of the Act barring the exclusion codified in s. 80G(2)(a)(iiihk) & (iiihl). As a corollary to delineations made in the preceeding paragraphs, s. 37 and S. 80G, appear mutually exclusive subject to exceptions provided in sub-clause (2)(a)(iiihk) & (iiihl) of S. 80G of the Act.
Hence, the exception carved out by way of Explanation 2 to s. 37 (1) prohibiting claim of CSR expenses as business expenditure, by itself, will not serve as any kind of impediment for the purposes of claim of deduction under s. 80G of the Act.
The contribution made in question are not shown to be falling in exclusions provided in (iiihk) or (iiihl) of sub-section 2 clause (a) of S. S. 80G of the Act. The action of the Revenue Authorities is thus not sustainable in law. The claim of deduction on CSR expenses on the touchstone of Section 80G is thus allowed.
Eligibility towards weighted deductions u/s 35(2AB) - amount of weighted deduction to the extent of approval by prescribed authority - HELD THAT:- The quantification of eligible expense for weighted deduction is procedural or a machinery exercise. Hence, there is no warrant to negate the effect of the substituted Rule which seeks to limit the amount of weighted deduction to the extent of approval by prescribed authority supposedly carrying domain expertise in the field.
The observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench in Natural Remedies [2020 (1) TMI 1361 - ITAT BANGALORE] are merely in the nature of obiter while adjudication of the case relating to A.Y. 2016-17 where the substituted Rule had not come into force. The observations made thus do not carry any precedent value per se. Similarly, the coordinate bench in USV P. Ltd.[2023 (10) TMI 1128 - ITAT MUMBAI] has applied the decision rendered in assessee’s own case in earlier year without any discussion on effect of amendment in Rule 6(7A) of I.T. Rules. Hence, the view expressed in USV P. Ltd. is not entitled to great weight.
We thus see little merit in the plea raised on behalf of the assessee to ignore the substituted law expressly provided in Rule 6(7A) of the Act and to ignore the quantification carried out by the prescribed authority for the purposes of deduction under Section 35(2AB) of the Act. The contention of the assessee to avail weighted deduction on unapproved amount is thus devoid of any merit. The aspect is thus adjudicated against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
2024 (5) TMI 161 - ITAT DELHI
Validity of assessment made u/s 147 instead of u/s. 153C - Addition as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 - assessee has received accommodation entry in the form of bogus LTCG/STCG from one entry operator - HELD THAT:- Upon careful consideration, we find that assessment in this case was framed pursuant to the reopening of the case u/s. 147 of the I.T Act, 1961. CIT(A) has given findings which has been duly elaborated as above, ld. CIT(A) has held that the provision 153C of the Act, were applicable in the present case for framing the assessment, which excludes the application of section 147 of the Act. Hence, notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and the assessment framed further thereto u/s. 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act are void ab initio. Therefore the ld. CIT(A) held that the reassessment u/s. 147/148 of the Act for AY 2017-18 is quashed and this ground of appeal is allowed. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 160 - ITAT DELHI
Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - FTS/FIS - receipts pertaining to supply of software (including AMC services) - DR held software licence fee will not constitute royalty income but business income under Article 7 of India- USA DTAA which is not taxable in India in the absence of PE of the assessee.
HELD THAT:- Assessee is a tax resident of USA and has opted to be governed by the provisions of India-USA DTAA. Also, the assessee does not have a PE in India. The assessee had entered into a Software Licensing Agreement for supply and license certain Software and Service Level Agreement (forming part of Software Licence Agreement) to provide AMC services to Reliance/Jio/ RJIL.
What the assessee has supplied in the form of a Software to Reliance/ Jio is a copyrighted article not a copyright in the Software. Fact on record demonstrates that the Software is supplied by the assessee on a non-transferable, non-exclusive basis to various customers all over India. The assessee has only granted a right to use its Software to Jio in connection with its telecommunication business. The consideration received towards licensing of software is for use of a copyrighted article and therefore not taxable as royalty income under the provisions of Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA.
In our considered view, the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence P. Ltd. (2021 (3) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT]) which has already been upheld by the DRP and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in light of the factual matrix of the present case. We, therefore have no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. DRP on the impugned issue. Consequently, consideration received by the assessee from supply of software licence is not taxable in India in terms of Article 7 of the India-USA DTAA. Accordingly, ground Nos. 1 to 4 is allowed with a direction to the Ld. AO to give effect to the Ld. DRP’s findings in its directions/ order.
Remaining receipts on account of support and maintenance services rendered by the assessee - Nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue to establish that any technical knowledge has been provided to the employees of Reliance / JIO and / or human intervention is required in provision of AMC services. The observations and findings of the AO/ DRP on these aspects are based on surmises and conjectures. Imparting training or educating a person with respect to functionality and attributes of a software or application would clearly not amount to the rendering of technical service under the DTAA which view has been upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision in the case SFDC Ireland vs. CIT [2024 (3) TMI 620 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
We hold that the receipts are not taxable in India as FTS/ FIS under Article 12(4) of the India-USA DTAA. It is business profits of the assessee not taxable in India in the absence of a PE of the assessee in India in terms of Article 7 of the India-USA DTAA. Accordingly, ground decided in favour of the assessee. In the nutshell, the entire receipts from the supply of software licence and maintenance and support services (AMC services) rendered by the assessee are held to be non-taxable in India.
Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 159 - ITAT NAGPUR
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - interest derived from deposits of SLR funds [Statutory Liquidity Ratio] - DR argued that this amount has been found as the excessive component in assessee’s deduction claim which hardly deserves to be accepted for the purpose of computing the impugned deduction - HELD THAT:- Assessee has all along been claiming the impugned sum to be representing it’s SLR i.e., Statutory Liquidity Ratio as mandatory compliance of the various banking norms applicable in case of a co-operative society.
It is in this factual backdrop that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision CIT vs., Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank [2001 (8) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT] and CIT vs. Nawanshahar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.[2005 (8) TMI 28 - SC ORDER] have already settled the issue in assessee’s favour and against the department that such an interest derived from deposits of SLR funds duly qualifying for sec. 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (5) TMI 158 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance of raw material consumption - scope of rejecting the books of account - adopting method of estimation to make an addition due to increase in raw material consumption - as per DR there is corelated increase in sales as compared to increase in raw material consumption and the onus to give reason was on assessee - HELD THAT:- When the AO is resorting to any ad hoc disallowance on the basis of some estimation, he is rejecting the books of accounts without recording the specific reasons. Mere deviation in percentage of consumption of raw materials cannot be a ground for rejecting the books of account and entering in the realm and guesswork of estimation without inquiring into the genuineness of the purchases.
The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dhiraj R. Rungta [2014 (4) TMI 711 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that once rejection of books of account is justified under section 145 of the Act, no other addition can be made referring the same set of books to the income of the assessee. In the present case, the AO used the same set of books of accounts to estimate the disallowance which is not justifiable. CIT (A) also adopted the same method of AO accepting the books of accounts on one hand and making ad hoc addition on other hand but at lower percentage of disallowance.
When the books of accounts are regularly maintained and are duly audited without any adverse opinion or comments of an auditor, they are to be taken as correct unless there are adequate reasons to indicate that they are incorrect or unreliable. Thus, the onus is upon Revenue to show that either the books of accounts maintained by assessee are incorrect or incomplete or that the method of accounting adopted by him was such that true profits of the assessee cannot be deduced therefrom.
Neither AO nor Ld. CIT(A) has demonstrated specific defects in the books of accounts, therefore adopting method of estimation to make an addition due to increase in raw material consumption is not justifiable. Accordingly we delete the addition made by Ld. CIT(A) restricting the disallowance to 15% only. This ground of the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 157 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - no proper recording of satisfaction by the AO for rejecting the suomoto disallowance - HELD THAT:- We find that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case [2024 (2) TMI 1043 - ITAT DELHI] held that there is no proper satisfaction recorded on the suo moto disallowance made by the assessee and, therefore, there cannot be any disallowance under Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A of the Act.
There is no proper recording of satisfaction by the AO for rejecting the suomoto disallowance made by the AO. Thus, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, we allow the grounds raised by the assessee.
Disallowance under 14A of the Act while computing the provisions u/s 115JB - The issue is covered by the decision of Vireet Investments [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] as held that there cannot be any disallowance under Rule 8D read with 14A of the Act in terms of clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB of the Act. Thus, respectfully following the said decision, we hold that the disallowance made under Rule 8D read with section 14A of the Act while computing book profits cannot be sustained. In any case since the assessee itself made suo moto disallowance there cannot be any further disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of IT Rules while computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. Ground raised by the Revenue is rejected.
-
2024 (5) TMI 156 - ITAT DELHI
Validity of reopening of assessment - Valid approval granted by PCIT u/s 151 or not? - HELD THAT:- We observed from the record that AO has received the approval from the PCIT-7 for reopening of the assessment and Ld. PCIT in point No.13 mentioned that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 by observing that “Yes I am satisfied”.
As in the case of Safonia Tradelinks (P.) Ltd. 2021 (3) TMI 1177 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein the approval u/s 151 was granted simply and endorsing as approved. Even in this case the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Further, it is brought to our notice in the case of VCR Township Pvt. Ltd. 2020 (10) TMI 1223 - ITAT DELHI wherein similar approval was granted for reopening of the assessment by approving authority as “Yes, I am satisfied” and the Co-ordinate Bench has decided the similar issue in favor of the assessee.
Respectfully following the above decision, the facts in the present case are also exactly similar to the above facts on record. Accordingly, ground No.3 raised by the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 155 - ITAT DELHI
Validity of assessment proceedings initiated u/s 153A - unabated assessment - purchase of agri-land by the assessee - Addition u/s 69 - HELD THAT:- As held in the case of Abhisar Buildwell P Ltd (2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] no addition can be made in the case of unabated assessment which are not part of incriminating materials found during the search. In the present case, it is clearly established that assessee has made several payments to the farmers which lead to the finding that the assessee has purchased several immovable properties. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the submissions of the assessee on the issue of purchase of agri-land by the assessee that there is no incriminating material found during the search. Accordingly, the ground nos.1 and 2 are are partly allowed because in the other additions, there are no incriminating material, the same was discussed somewhere in this order.
Addition u/s 69 - Payment to farmers and purchase of agriland - We observed from the record that AO acknowledged that assessee has paid cash payment to the farmers to the extent of money withdrawn from the bank. These findings clearly shows that there is a direct link with the information collected from the assessee and substantiates that the assessee has capacity to make payments to farmers. We also observed from the record that the AO has made addition based on the presumption that the assessee has no source and also the difference between the investment made as per registered documents and circle rates as per the respective lands.
The assessee has demonstrated that she has sources to make the investment and she is eligible to get the investment made in the agricultural land to the extent of declared sources. It is fact on record that the assessee has withdrawn the cash and made the payment to the farmers, to the extent of cash withdrawn by her from the bank for which she has sufficient fund available in the bank. Therefore, we are directing the AO to adjust the payments made from withdrawing from the bank account. The other part of the addition after making the addition may be sustained. In this regard, we are inclined to partly allow the ground no 3 raised by the assessee.
Coming to the other additions made by the Assessing Officer, we observed that all these information collected in post search proceedings and there is no evidence to show that the additions made by the assessing officer has bearing from the material found during the search - we are inclined to direct the Assessing Officer to delete above mentioned additions made by him in the assessment order. Accordingly, ground Nos 4 to 7 raised by the assessee are allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 154 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Denial of TDS credit - employer of the assessee has not deposited TDS after deducting the same from the salary paid to the assessee - Liability to deduct TDS - in the absence of TDS getting reflected in form 26AS, the CPC denied granting TDS credit - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue in this appeal is similar to the issue decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Harshdip Singh Dhillon vs. Union of India [2024 (1) TMI 275 - DELHI HIGH COURT] since the petitioner accepted the salary after deduction of Income-tax at source, it is his employer who is liable to deposit the same with the Revenue authorities and on this count, the petitioner cannot be burdened. We find no substantial question of law to be considered by us in this appeal. Therefore, the petition is allowed and consequently the impugned demand notice is set aside and the respondent-Revenue is directed to allow credit of tax at source deducted by his employer - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 153 - ITAT CHENNAI
Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - disallowance made u/s. 35(2AB) - assessee argued that claim was made by the assessee as per DSIR guidelines and duly certified by a Chartered Accountant and DSIR does not communicate the grounds or items on which, it has restricted the claim of weighted deduction towards capital expenditure and revenue expenditure - Whether the DSIR approval or certificate restricting the claim of deduction u/s. 35(2AB) and particularly, when certificate comes after filing of return of income, restricting the deduction by the AO based on DSIR approval can amount to concealment of particulars of income or not ?
HELD THAT:- The issue answered in the case of CIT vs. Balaji Distilleries Ltd. [2012 (10) TMI 514 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], wherein it is held that in the absence of due care, it did not mean that the assessee was guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income and hence, the imposition of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on assessee’s held not justified. The Hon’ble Madras High Court applied the decision of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (9) TMI 775 - SUPREME COURT]
Also decided in Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] wherein as propounded “the meaning of the term ‘particulars’ used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the details of the claim made. Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate ‘particulars’. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. By no stretch of imagination can making an incorrect claim tantamount to furnishing inaccurate ‘particulars’”
Thus at the time of filing of return of income, the DSIR approval was not available with the assessee restricting the claim of deduction will not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in the return of income filed by the assessee. Hence, we delete the penalty and allow the appeal of assessee.
-
2024 (5) TMI 152 - ITAT CHENNAI
Computation of deduction u/s 10AA - excluding expenses incurred in foreign currency from export turnover for the purpose of computation - HELD THAT:- As referring to High Court of Madras [2020 (8) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] against [2016 (11) TMI 1670 - ITAT CHENNAI] order dated 16.11.2016 in ITA No. 1009/Mds/2014 hold that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in excluding foreign currency expenditure from the export turnover for the computation of deduction under section 10AA of the Act.
Double addition of interest from fixed deposits in the computation of income - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the computation of total income in giving effect proceedings in pursuance to the directions of the ITAT, AO again added sum which is clear from appeal memo. In this regard, we find that the assessee filed rectification application under section 154 and it was submitted by the ld. AR that no decision whatsoever passed by the Assessing Officer as on today. CIT did not dispute the same, but, however, prayed to give direction to the Assessing Officer to pass orders in this regard. Accordingly, ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Short grant of TDS credit - HELD THAT:- DR prayed to give a direction to the Assessing Officer to give full TDS credit as was given in the original assessment proceedings order dated 20.03.2015. We order accordingly. Thus, the ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2024 (5) TMI 151 - ITAT MUMBAI
Time limit to pass assessment u/s. 92CA(3) - time line for passing of the order u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act for the purpose of reckoning the time period for completion of the assessment - HELD THAT:- The assessee has relied on the said decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras which has held that the time period prescribed under the said provision is mandatory and not discretionary though the word used in the statute is “may”.
The assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of Saint Gobain India (P) Ltd. [2022 (4) TMI 808 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]which has again reiterated that on identical facts, TPO should have passed the order on or before 31.10.2019 and any order passed beyond this would be barred by limitation, holding the ld.TPO's order to be nonest in the eyes of law, consequently the draft assessment order is also held to be invalid. In the case of an invalid transfer pricing order and the draft assessment order, the ld. A.O. has no jurisdiction to assess u/s. 144C of the Act holding the assessee to be not an ‘eligible assessee’ as per section 144C(15)(b)(i) of the Act.
On the above observation, where this issue has been dealt with extensively by the Hon'ble High Court, we are inclined to hold the ld. TPO's order dated 01.11.2019, draft assessment order and the final assessment order dated 27.03.2021 is barred by limitation as per the provision of section 92CA(3) and, hence, the subsequent draft assessment order and the final assessment order is, therefore, liable to be quashed on this ground. Hence, the additional ground raised by the assessee are hereby allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 150 - ITAT JAIPUR
Validity of reopening of assessment - reason to believe - HELD THAT:- Though the assessee has raised the legal ground challenging the validity of reopening proceeding but in the course of hearing failed to bring any substantial information to rebut the legality of reassessment proceeding. Therefore, considering that Ld. AO having relevant information indicating escapement of income, was well within his jurisdiction to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act and carry out the reassessment proceedings.
Addition u/s. 56(2)(viib) - transaction of sale of agricultural land - difference between the consideration as per the stamp value authority and the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- Examining the definition of agricultural land mentioned in the above section 2(14) of the Act in light of the certificates of the Municipal Board, certificate of distance from land to Municipal Board and certificate of population by Gram Panchayat office, we find that agricultural land in question do not fall in the category of capital asset. These additional evidence were also made available to the Ld. DR and she also failed to point out any specific discrepancies in the said documents which have been filed under the certificate of assessee. We are, thus, of the considered view that agricultural land in question is not a capital asset and is not falling under the provisions of section 2(14) of the Act.
Whether if an asset is not falling in the category of capital asset then the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not attracted because the property defined in clause (d) to explanation refers to only capital asset? - As relying on SHRI TRILOK CHAND SAIN [2019 (2) TMI 277 - ITAT JAIPUR] the asset in question is an agricultural land not falling in the category of capital asset defined in clause (d) to Explanation to sec. 56(2)(viib) of the Act and, therefore, section 56(2)(viib) of the Act cannot be invoked.
Assessee appeal is partly allowed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 149 - ITAT DELHI
Addition u/s 68 OR 41(1) - unexplained cash credit - assessee has not given satisfactory explanation with regard to identity of parties, genuineness of transaction and capacity of creditors - Contrary to this, CIT(A) sustained the addition by invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act holding that these credits have been outstanding since long time - HELD THAT:- As rightly pointed out by the ld. A.R., the authorities have not brought anything on record to prove that the liability is ceased to exist and neither of the parties has written off the same in their books of accounts. Further, balance sheet of this assessment year has been duly signed by the assessee itself thereby acknowledged the debt and in such circumstances, the lower authority is precluded in applying the provisions of section 41(1) - More so, lower authority was not sure whether section 68 of the Act to be applied or section 41(1) - In such dichotomy neither provisions of section 68 nor 41(1) of the Act could be applied by the Revenue Authorities. Accordingly, we delete this addition made in respect of S.K. Enterprises.
With regard to Amitabh Enterprises when the inspector has visited the premises, it was reported that the firm was not operative from that address in the year 2015. Transaction took place prior to 01.04.2009 and the non-existence of this firm in 2015 cannot be reason to sustain addition and the report of the inspector cannot be relied in its entirety since there was no basis for such information so recorded by him by following the due procedure as stipulated in Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, unless and until there is an evidence to show that these credits are ceased to exist, there cannot be any addition u/s 41(1) of the Act, accordingly we delete the addition.
With regard to Shiv Shakti Card there was no cessation of credits in the assessment year under consideration. Full payment has been made in the assessment year 2013-14 and the purchase has been accepted in assessment year 2012-13. Being so, it cannot be added u/s 143(3) of the Act as discussed in earlier para 7 above and for the reasons mentioned thereon, we delete the addition.
With regard to Renuka Enterprises the said outstanding was of prior to 01.04.2009. Complete payment has been made in assessment year 2013-14 and no assessment was made u/s 143(3) on the same in the assessment year 2013-14. Only intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was made. Hence, as discussed in earlier para 7 above and for the reasons mentioned thereon, we delete the addition.
With regard to Sikka Paper Pvt. Ltd. it is not possible to hold that debt ceased to exist. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Balkrishna Industries Ltd reported in 300 CTR 29, wherein held that “if there is no remission or cessation of liability, amount in question cannot be treated as income u/s 41(1) of the Act”. In the case of CIT Vs. SI Group India Ltd. [2014 (12) TMI 267 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that “since record before authorities did not disclose that, there was no remission or cessation of liability, one of the requirements spelt out for applicability of section 41(1) of the Act had not been fulfilled in facts of present case. Addition is deleted”. Accordingly, in our opinion, in all these cases mentioned above, it cannot be held that there is cessation of liability.
Addition for Cardline Products - Cessation of liability - The complete payment has been made in the assessment year 2013-14 to the tune of Rs. 33,41,957/- and the return has been filed by the assessee and accepted for the assessment year 2013-14 while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act and there is no evidence brought on record by ld. AO to show that this credit has ceased to exist in assessment year 2012-13.
-
2024 (5) TMI 148 - ITAT KOLKATA
Addition of employees’ contribution towards PF - delayed contribution - HELD THAT:- This issue is no longer res integra and the issue has been decided in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been held that “deduction u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount collected towards employees’ contribution to PF cannot be claimed when deposited within the due date of filing of return even when read with Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961. Decided against assessee.
Disallowance of interest paid on TDS u/s. 201(1A) - assessee reiterated as had paid interest u/s 201(1A) for delayed payment of TDS before filing of the income tax return - as urged that the said payment is not in the nature of penalty but it is the amount of interest which is not penal in nature, therefore, it should be allowed u/s. 37(1) - HELD THAT:- As relying on M/S PREMIER IRRIGATION ADRITEC (P) LTD case [2023 (1) TMI 1124 - ITAT KOLKATA] interest on late deposit of TDS is not an allowable expenditure and this ground of appeal is dismissed.
-
2024 (5) TMI 147 - ITAT MUMBAI
Estimation of income - bogus purchases - GP estimation - HELD THAT:- The assessee submitted books of account, purchase bills, sale bills, transaction through banking channels and the sale was totally declared in MVAT returns which were filed before the ld. Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). The GP of the genuine purchase is @5.66% and GP of bogus purchase is @3.10%. So, the balance@ 2.56% of bogus purchases is only to be added and is restricted for addition. In our considered view, we set aside the appeal order and the addition is restricted to gross profit @2.56% on the bogus purchase.
........
|
