|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1715 Records
-
2020 (2) TMI 1615 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Recovery of service tax dues - Club and association services - doctrine of mutuality - service rendered during the period between 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 - Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- The issue, as to whether the petitioner has liable to pay the service tax or not is now covered by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. VERSUS CALCUTTA CLUB LIMITED AND CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE & ORS. VERSUS M/S. RANCHI CLUB LTD. [2019 (10) TMI 160 - SUPREME COURT]. For earlier periods between 01.10.2008 and 31.01.2014 and between 01.02.2014 and 31.03.2015, an order has been passed by this Court in M/S OOTACAMUND CLUB VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, O/O. THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS & SERVICE TAX [2020 (1) TMI 198 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others Vs Calcutta Club Ltd and Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax and Another Vs Ranchi Club Ltd. - it was held that from 2005 onwards, the Finance Act of 1994 does not purport to levy service tax on members’ clubs in the incorporated form.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1614 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH
Maintainability of petition - lack of prosecution - HELD THAT:- Nobody turned up on the side of the applicant - Appeal dismissed for the want of prosecution.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1613 - ITAT KOLKATA
Validity of CIT-A order u/s. 250 - assessee has not appeared before the ld. CIT(A) and hence an ex-parte order was passed dismissing the appeal of the assessee - HELD THAT:- We find that the ld. CIT(A) has not disposed off the case on merits. This is not permissible in law. Hence, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A), for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law, after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, on the grounds of violations of the principles of natural justice.
Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1612 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution - assessee contended that neither the notice nor the order of the Tribunal was served upon the assessee - He came to know about the order subsequently through Department, therefore, assessee could not appear at that point of time - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to observe that notices upon the assessee were sent through Registered Post and most of the time they were returned with the remark ‘left’. The assessee has not furnished latest address to the Tribunal. The new address of the assessee is different.
On due consideration of the above facts, notice upon the assessee on the change of address could not be served and, therefore, the assessee could not appear before the Tribunal when the appeal was called for hearing.
We are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for not appearing before the Tribunal. Therefore, we recall the order of Tribunal and restore the appeal to its original number. The Registry is directed to list the appeal for hearing on 04.05.2020.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1611 - ITAT DELHI
TP Adjustment - interest on receivables - treating the receivables outstanding beyond 60 days from associated enterprises (AEs) as deemed loan and charging notional interest on the basis of LIBOR plus 300 basis points - HELD THAT:- DRP, first of all, has given direction to the TPO to give working capital adjustment by taking average opening and closing balance of the inventories and receivable/ payables credit, debtors and creditors for the relevant year and the issue of adjustment on account of outstanding receivables. DRP on the basis of direction in A.Y. 2014- 15, held that the TPO has rightly allowed 60 days credit period and but has wrongly applied SBI PLR rate plus 300 basis point. The TPO should apply LIBOR plus basis points for making the adjustment on account of interest.
Since in assessee’s own case, the Tribunal has held that once working capital adjustment has been made, then no separate adjustment is called for on interest of receivables. The Tribunal has followed the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd [2017 (4) TMI 1254 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
As already direction for working capital adjustment has been given by DRP, therefore, we hold that no Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of interest on payment of receivables can be made separately. Thus, the Transfer Pricing Adjustment on account of interest on receivable is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1610 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH
Calling for records/documents - It is stated that in spite of clear notice, the respondents have not furnished any of the documents/record as mentioned - HELD THAT:- In the circumstances and in view of the non-furnishing of the information by the respondents No. 1 to 5, issue notice to all the respondents to show cause as to why the matter shall not be referred to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India to enable the Board to act in terms of Section 236 read with Section 70 of the Code.
The respondents No. 1 to 5 may file any further reply in response to the show cause notice within two weeks after service on the other side - List on 11.03.2020.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1609 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay of 263 days in filing the appeal suit - reason for delay stated is that learned counsel lost the certified copies of the case paper, handed over to him and could not trace the case papers, despite the effort taken, and during April 2017, the case papers were traced out and thereafter, the first appeal is filed - HELD THAT:- The reason stated is not only flimsy but also shows the casual attitude of the petitioner. The parties, who would like to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree, are expected to be vigilant. If such a casual approach is encouraged, then this Court is of the opinion that the very principles set out in the law of limitation will be defeated. Law of limitation being a substantive law, the appeals are to be filed within a time limit. Filing an appeal within a period of limitation is the rule and condonation of delay is an exception. Thus, while condoning the delay, the Courts must be cautious and only on genuine reasons, the Courts are empowered to condone the delay. The power of discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judiciously and by recording reasons. The reasons furnished for condonation of delay must be candid and convincing.
The condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right and only on genuine reasons, the delay is to be condoned and not otherwise. In the event of condoning the huge delay in a routine manner, the Courts are not only diluting the law of limitation but unnecessarily encouraging this kind of lapses. Therefore, reasons which are all acceptable alone must be a ground for condonation of delay, and flimsy, false and casual reasons cannot be taken for the purpose of condoning the huge delay.
This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not set out any acceptable ground for the purpose of condoning the delay of 263 days - Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1608 - ITAT MUMBAI
TP Adjustment - determination of the arm’s-length price of the intra group services at nil - HELD THAT:- TPO has determined the arm’s-length price of the intra group services at nil without applying any method of benchmarking the arms length price. Without applying proper method of benchmarking of the arms length price of the international transaction in accordance with the method prescribed in the act the Transfer Pricing adjustment is not sustainable.
We find that the authorities below have erred in not appreciating the documents submitted by the assessee. While the TPO has not adopted any of the methods prescribed for benchmarking the international transaction, he has erred in applying the benefit test. On the other hand the assessing officer while purporting to invoke section 37(1) contradicted himself by stating that that he is not applying the benefit test, rather by raising issues of the documentation he has stepped into the shoes of the Transfer Pricing officer.
DRP has also erred in holding that the agreement should have been entered into by the parties in a particular manner by incorporating several other clauses. In our considered opiionn here the dispute resolution panel exceeded its jurisdiction on this account. The format of agreement between the parties is not a subject matter of decision of DRP. The dispute resolution panel further erred in agreeing with the Transfer Pricing officer for application of benefit test for computing the arms length price of the international transaction. Accordingly in our considered opinion the Transfer Pricing adjustment is liable to be set aside as appropriate method of benchmarking the arms length price of international transaction as per the statute has not been adopted as held in the case of Johnson & Johnson [2017 (4) TMI 1281 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
Invoking of benefit test in transfer pricing adjustment is also against the ratio laid down by honourable Bombay High Court in the case of Lever India Exports Ltd. [2017 (2) TMI 120 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1607 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING, GOA
Levy of IGST - Job-work - import of iron ore for conversion into pellets and export the resultant product (Iron ore pellets) back to same supplier - import duty is not applicable in view of the exemption under General Exemption No. 66 (Exemption Notification No. 32/97-Cus dated 1st April, 1997) for job work - liability of applicant as recipient of imported iron ore to pay the IGST - input tax credit - IGST so paid as per Section 16 of the CGST Act - refund of unutilised input tax credit on export of services as per Section 16(3)(a) of the IGST Act and 54(3) of the CGST Act - time limitation.
HELD THAT:- It is an admitted position of the appellant that after conversion of iron ore into pellets, the pellets are exported to the non-resident party or to any other non-resident parties as nominated by the non-resident with whom they have/intend to have contract. Hence, their contention that they are exporting only services, but not goods is not tenable.
Whether the said goods exported by appellant are subjected to export duty' whereby the proviso to Sec. 54(3) ibid is attracted? - HELD THAT:- The statutory provision i.e, proviso to Sec.54 (3) ibid speaks of goods which are subject to export duty'. The phrase 'subject to export deity' is equivalent to leviable to export duty', in the given context. It is not denied that the goods exported are covered under the Export Tariff as being subject to i.e., leviable to export duty, though by an exemption Notification such export duty payable is NIL. It is well-settled principle that goods being exempted or chargeable to Nil rate of duty by virtue of Notifications etc., does not remove the goods from the category of those 'leviable to duty'.
In the instant case also, the exported goods are specified in the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as subjected to export duty; while by a Notification issued under Section 25 (1) of the Customs Act, the same were exempted. Hence, the ratio of and principles laid down in the above decisions is clearly applicable, whereby the goods have to be treated as falling within the criterion ' subject to export duty' - the phrase 'subject to export duty’ is used in the proviso, without any qualification/restriction such as 'other than those exempted or Nil rate', as has been used in the clause (ii) immediately preceding the proviso to Section 54(3). It is well-settled that the words in a statute must be given their plain, natural meaning and that the Legislature, when used certain words/phrases in a given situation and not used such words/phrases in another situation, there is a conscious legislative intent in such non-usage. We further find that the appellants have also not provided any authoritative texts/support to negate the finding of the lower authority in this regard.
On a careful reading of the correct position of the statute vis-a-vis the appellant's contention, it clearly emerges that the language employed in the statute as discussed in the paras above are plain and unambiguous and it amply conveys the legislative intent.
Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The AAR decision was communicated to appellant on 21.05.2019. The appeal was filed on 26.06.2019, with regard to the ruling rendered vide point (4) mentioned therein. The same was filed in time and has been answered in the preceding paragraphs. However, the additional grounds of appeal preferred by the appellant vide their letter Ref No. CCPL/GST/19-20/23 dated 16.01.2020 are barred by limitation as contained in Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 as it is filed beyond a period of thirty days from the date on which the ruling sought to be appealed against is communicated to the concerned officer, the jurisdictional officer and the applicant. The said additional grounds of appeal filed by the appellant vide their letter Ref No. CCPL/GST/19-20/23 dated 16.01.2020 is also barred by the further extended period of limitation as contained in the proviso to Section 100(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 which provided a further period not exceeding thirty days - As the additional submissions vide which the additional grounds for appeal have been preferred are hit by limitation, this Authority being bound by the statute, is not empowered to entertain the same Hence, the said 'additional ground' is rejected on the grounds of limitation, and thereby without any need to delve into the merits of the same.
The Ruling given by AAR, Goa being consistent with the extant statute is maintained. The appeal dated 26.06.2019 as well as the additional grounds of appeal dated 16.01.2020 of the appellant are rejected.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1606 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Service of writ application - HELD THAT:- As an interim measure, it is directed that, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to Annexures- 6 & 7, till the next date.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner shall cooperate so far as the proceeding before the Central GST authority is concerned.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1605 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Recovery of CENVAT credit - documentation that was not consistent with the requirements prescribed in rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - period from April 2009 to August 2009 - HELD THAT:- The identical controversy dealt with by Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik has upheld the eligibility for CENVAT credit despite the alleged deficiencies. In doing so, reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., LUCKNOW [2006 (11) TMI 521 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] and of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS PRIYADARSHINI CABLE LTD. [2005 (1) TMI 127 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI]. Furthermore, the decision of the Tribunal in ACE TYRES LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD-IV [2017 (2) TMI 533 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] on identical facts, has also held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied.
Penalties - HELD THAT:- With the demand being unsustainable in consequence, the penalties imposed on the assessee as well as the individual also fail.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1604 - CESTAT MUMBAI
100% EOU - Classification of imported goods - drugs - restricted goods or not - Rule 43A of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 - HELD THAT:- The goods are, admittedly, intended for use in manufacture by ‘100% export oriented unit’ and, for such units, imported goods are procured against ‘into bond’ bill of entry which are then subject to processing in accordance with the Rules framed, and for supervision of facilities licenced, under Section 65 of Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, unlike other warehousing procedures, clearance against ‘ex bond’ bill of entry for home consumption is restricted only for removal as such with clearances undergoing the procedure prescribed under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Consequently, the pre-requisites for clearance of goods for home consumption, viz., ascertainment of payment of duties and ascertainment of any prohibition on import, prescribed in Section 47 of Customs Act, 1962, are not intended to impact the goods procured from abroad by units operating under the scheme.
The invoking of Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 on such goods brought into the bonded premises of ‘100% export oriented units’, such as that of the respondent, is not within the scope of legislative intent. The initiation of proceedings against the respondents herein, therefore, does not have the sanction of law.
The impugned order cannot be faulted for setting aside the confiscation and penalty ordered by the original authority - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1603 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Classification of imported goods - Desiccants-MBD 99 - to be classified under CTH 250810190 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or under CTH 38029019 of CTA, 1975 - It is alleged that the activated clay/ activated earth/ processed bentonite falls under CTH 3802.90 since it is acid activated, because of which a different product with modified molecular structure having distinct properties like absorptive capacity, catalytic properties, ion exchange capacity bearing different industrial use, emerges? - extended period of limitation.
HELD THAT:- In narrating the facts in the appeal memo, the appellant has stated that the said product was ‘Heat Processed and Grounded Bentonite’ having the property of absorbing moisture and by heat processing the water contents are removed to improve absorbent property of the said Bentonite clay. We need not analyze the issue of classification any further as the product imported by the appellant is more or less similar to the product considered by the Tribunal in KOMAL TRADING COMPANY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (IMPORT), MUMBAI [2014 (5) TMI 754 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that for the period from 1-2-2003 to 31-12-2006, activated Bentonite has to be classified under CTH 2508 10 90 (because of its specific inclusion in the tariff description). However, for the period prior to 1-2-2003 and from 1-1-2007 onwards, when there is no specific inclusion, in view of Note 1 to Chapter 25 which excludes products whose structure has undergone a change, the said product merits classification under CTH 3802 90 19.
Thus, the product Desiccants - MBD 99 is correctly classifiable under chapter sub-heading 38029019 of CTA, 1975.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- In the present case also, there is no suppression of facts or mis-declaration as all the relevant materials were submitted by the appellant at the time of import of goods for assessment. Accordingly, invoking extended period in confirming the demand is unsustainable.
The impugned order is upheld to the extent of confirming the classification of the imported goods under CTH 38029019. However, the demand confirmed invoking extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty and confiscation directed against the appellant are hereby set aside - Appeal allowed in part.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1602 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Import of the Graphite Tubes - imported Graphite Tubes were not used by the appellant in their factory - non-compliance with the condition of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 - HELD THAT:- It is an undisputed fact that the imported Graphite Tubes during the relevant period were received in the factory premises of the appellant, and the same cleared to the site of the customer, and fitted to Heat Exchangers, which in turn, used in MSFE system installed at the site of the customer. The Revenue’s objection is that as a condition of the said Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 read with Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacturing of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996, the imported Graphite Tubes were required to be used “in his factory”, even though the same were fitted to Heat Exchanger at the site of the customer. Rebutting the said argument, the appellants have submitted that after receiving the Graphite Tubes in their factory the same were tested for its suitability in the Heat Exchanger and cut to relevant sizes, thereafter cleared to the site of the customer for fitting it finally in the Heat Exchanger. They have argued that the Graphite Tubes are cleared separately instead of fitting the same in their factory due to the fragile nature of the said Graphite Tubes, which in all probability could break during the course of transportation of the Heat Exchanger to the site.
The Revenue’s only objection in denying the benefit of Notification is that the imported Graphite Tubes were not used by the appellant in their factory. There is no dispute of the fact that the Graphite Tubes were received in the factory and to the claim of the appellant that they were tested and made suitable after necessary cutting and polishing, etc., to be used in Heat Exchanger, a part of MSFE system, no contrary evidence has been placed on record - a logical, reasonable and technically sound explanation has been furnished by the appellant for such separate clearance. It is stated that due to fragile nature of the imported graphite tubes, after its testing the same were cleared separately to avoid damage during transportation of the Heat Exchangers to the site. It cannot be denied that the Heat Exchanger cannot function without having fitted with the Graphite Tubes and the Revenue has not disputed that the said Graphite Tubes were fitted to Heat Exchanger at the site of the customer.
The appellant had complied with the condition of Notification of using the imported goods in their factory both in letter and spirit, hence denial of benefit exemption Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 to them would be unjustified and accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on merit. Also, there is a good case on limitation also.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1601 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Rejection of petitioner's stay application - seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax pending the Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Telangana Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad - HELD THAT:- Since the petitioner has already paid 25% of the disputed tax at the time of filing of the Appeal before the Tribunal and since the entire Appeal would be rendered infructuous if the respondents are allowed to collect the entire disputed tax pending the Appeal, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing stay of collection of the disputed tax pending disposal of the Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Telangana Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1600 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD
Reopening of case for certain clarifications - HELD THAT:- A formal notice be issued under Section 7(5) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code to the Petitioner to reply the queries/clarifications. The clarifications are stated as under:
1. The proof of disbursement of amount ₹ 2.50 Lakhs and 50.00 Lakhs by the proprietor to the Corporate Debtor as stated in the Petition.
2. No agreement for giving loan or Bank account showing disbursements of the amount are not available on record. The same is required to be submitted.
3. There is no bank statement showing the receipt of any amount from Respondent also. Proof of receipt of such amount as claimed to be produced.
4. Balance sheet of the Respondent and the Petitioner are not enclosed to prove that these transactions/outstandings have shown in the books of account. Copy of the balance sheet is to be submitted.
5. Whether the Petitioner is a money lender as submitted by the Respondent. Any proof thereof to be provided.
6. One cheque is returned and purpose for which the cheque was issued is not on record. If any letter is available to this effect may be produced.
The Petitioner is to file reply within stipulated period - List the matter on 04.03.2020.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1599 - SUPREME COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - cheque in question was issued since the shares could not be issued - HELD THAT:- The complaint filed by the Appellants Under Section 138 of the NI Act is earlier in point of time. The complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 is more than two years later. Since the issue in both the cases revolves around the same cheque, therefore, we find that instead of quashing the FIR No. 3 of 2007, the ends of justice would meet if proceedings arising out of FIR No. 3 of 2007 are transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Surat, where the proceedings of other complaint Under Section 138 of the NI Act are pending so that the complaint filed by the Appellants and the proceedings arising out of FIR alleged by Respondent No. 2 are decided together to avoid contradictory judgments and to facilitate the issues which are common in both.
The appeal is disposed of with the direction that the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 3 of 2007 PS Mehsana shall stand transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Surat where the proceedings of complaint No. 33537 of 2006 is pending.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1598 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of Bail - It is contended by Investigating Officer that charge-sheet was complete against the present petitioner and the matter was only kept pending with regard to investigation in relation to other two hundred plus suspected persons - HELD THAT:- The contention of Investigating Officer that it is the practice of SOG to make a note that the matter is kept pending under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. against all is also not a ground to deny the bail, more particularly when it is clearly mentioned in the charge-sheet that the investigation is kept pending under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. against the present petitioner. It is true that Investigating Agency has a right to continue with the investigation but equally it is true that if the investigation is not completed within a prescribed time then the accused is entitled to default bail under the provision of Section 167 of Cr.P.C.
This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner shall be released on bail provided the conditions imposed are satisfies - application allowed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1597 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Smuggling - contraband item - failure to supply documents that were relied on in the detention order - personal bias alleged against the sponsoring authority, detaining authority or the affirming authority - HELD THAT:- The detenu is heard, without the presence of Department officials for reason of the detenu being in preventive custody, on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. The entire attempt being to secure his freedom; the detenu would have something to submit before the Advisory Board which he would be averse to state before the officials, under whose detention, he will be returned after the hearing - Section 8 of the COFEPOSA Act does not mandate even a hearing, unless it is thought necessary by the Board or the detenu desires so. On the detenu seeking a hearing, it is imperative. But there is no hearing contemplated of the Department. The Department's presence before the Advisory Board is only when the Board seeks any further information from the appropriate Government or through it. The Advisory Board, it is trite, is empowered to device its own procedure as there is no lis to be adjudicated.
Section 8 empowers the Advisory Board to call for any information, as it may deem necessary, from or through the appropriate Government. Needless to say that such information, whether it be by way of documents or by oral clarifications has to be disclosed to the detenu. The detaining authority cannot place material or argue matters not evident from the records already supplied to the detenu.
The subjective satisfaction should emanate from the order of detention and the documents relied on. The defect in procedure, which would vitiate an order of preventive detention, could be either the materials proffered being specious or the materials served on the detenu, being insufficient to establish the link to the smuggling activity alleged, which form the basis for preventive detention. In the instant case the very crucial video footage from which the entire case was generated was not supplied to the detenu. The corroborating facts, which could have led to a subjective satisfaction of a smuggling ring being in operation, as available from the call details and the travel details were not examined by the detaining authority. The detaining authority merely relied on the opinion of the sponsoring authority. The documents revealing the call details and the travel details were also not supplied to the detenu.
The detenu in both the writ petitions shall be set at liberty forthwith, if their continued detention is not required in any other case - Petition allowed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1596 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Addition u/s 68 - Whether Tribunal was legally justified in disbelieving the affidavit filed by the father of the assessee who had testified the availability of money as a result of agriculture produce sold and past savings duly deposited in bank account? - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that the assessee has failed to produce material documentary evidence to proof cultivation of agricultural produce by way of Khasra Khatauni, source of irrigation (tube well/canal), evidence on cold storage etc. to justify the cash deposits in the aforesaid joint bank account in which even the cash deposits do not correlate with the proceeds emanating from Mandi Parishad. Therfore, the agricultural income claimed from the sale of accumulated produce of two and a half years in between March 2010 to October, 2010 towards cash deposit in the bank account in anticipation to corresponding withdrawals to the agricultural operations to be carried out for earning such volume of agricultural income is rightly disbelieved by the ld. CIT (A), to demonstrate availability of cash for investment in margin money of share trading business.
It is evident from the above that for the purpose of claiming the benefit of the agriculture income, it is necessary to produce the material evidence to substantiate claim of agricultural income for the assessment year under consideration. Further, the assessee should maintain the accounts pertaining to entire agriculture activity. In the instant case, no account was maintained by the assessee.
Addition in respect of the accumulated interest on RD A/c assessee failed to demonstrate on the basis of documentary evidence that the said Interest income was related to earlier years either before the authorities below or before us and therefore, we are inclined to appreciate the finding of the CIT (A) on this issue as legal and justified and confirm the addition accordingly.
We do not find any merit for the purpose of entertaining this appeal, since no substantial questions of law are involved.
............
|
