Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2021 2021 (2) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 101 to 120 of 1379 Records

• 2021 (2) TMI 1281 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL , NEW DELHI BENCH
  

  Appointment of Liquidator - IRP not submitted the consent - COC also not constituted - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of the provision shows that in terms of Section 34 (1) whenever a Liquidation order is passed under Section 33 of IBC, then the Resolution Professional appointed for the CIRP shall act as the liquidator for the purposes of liquidation unless replaced by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (4) of Section 34 of IBC 2016. His appointment is subject to condition that the Resolution Professional is required to submit a written consent for his appointment as Liquidator.

  Here in the case in hand, the IRP has not submitted the consent even in this matter no CoC was constituted and this fact was considered while passing the order of liquidation on 25th January, 2022 and the matter was listed to appoint the Liquidator on 31.01.2022, but the erstwhile IRP declined to act as Liquidator - As it is seen that neither the CoC was constituted nor there is other claimant, therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is deemed proper to exercise the powers under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules - application disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (2) TMI 1280 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Permission for withdrawal of appeal - HELD THAT:- Leave is sought to withdraw the appeals reserving the right to pursue appropriate remedies with regard to other grievances, if any.

  Civil Appeals stand dismissed as withdrawn.

  ---

• 2021 (2) TMI 1279 - SC ORDER
  

  Validity of assessment u/s 153A/153C - Maintainability of appeal on low tax effect - HELD THAT:- On perusing the record, it appears that the tax effect in these cases is less than the monetary limit of ₹ 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores only) and thus covered by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019.

  In that case, these appeals/petitions need not proceed in view of the aforesaid circular issued by the CBDT.

  Appellant(s)/petitioner(s) prays for time to take instructions. We see no reason to keep these case(s) pending as the tax effect is less than the amount specified in the stated circular.

  Accordingly, we dispose of these case(s), leaving all questions of law open. At the same time, we grant liberty to the appellant(s)/petitioner(s) to revive these appeal(s)/petition(s) in the event the factual position noted above is incorrect.

  ---

• 2021 (2) TMI 1278 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Delay in the protection order - seeking enforcement of the order dated 25th October, 2020 passed by the Emergency Arbitrator - Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the prima facie view that the Emergency Arbitrator is an Arbitrator; the Emergency Arbitrator has rightly proceeded against the respondent No.2; the order dated 25th October, 2020 is not a nullity; the order dated 25th October, 2020 is an order under Section 17(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This Court is of the view that the order dated 25th October, 2020 is appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This Court is of the clear view that the order dated 25^th October, 2020 is enforceable as an order of this Court under Section 17(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

  This Court is satisfied that immediate orders are necessary to protect the rights of the petitioner till the pronouncement of the reserved order. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo as on today at 04.50 P.M. till the pronouncement of the reserved order. The respondents are directed to file an affidavit to place on record the actions taken by them after 25th October, 2020 and the present status of all those actions, within 10 days - All the concerned authorities are directed to maintain status quo with respect to all matters in violation of the order dated 25th October, 2020 and shall file the status report with respect to the present status within 10 days of the receipt of this order. The other prayers of the petitioner shall be considered in the reserved order.

  ---

• 2021 (2) TMI 1277 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Seeking withdrawal of application under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - preferential transaction within the prohibition contained in Section 43 or not - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed on Rule 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules 2016, under which the adjudicating authority may permit withdrawal of an application on a request made by the applicant before its admission. Consequently, it has been urged that the private settlement which was entered into between the first and second respondents is contrary to the express provisions of the IBC and may even amount to a preferential transaction within the prohibition contained in Section 43.

  The impugned judgment and order of the NCLAT shall remain stayed - Issue notice, returnable in three weeks.

  ---

• 2021 (2) TMI 1276 - MADRAS HIGH COURT  
  

  Money Laundering - Proceeds of crime in the name of daughter - scheduled offences - Murder - attempt to murder - extortion - cases under the Arms Act - escape to Dubai and continued to remote control his criminal empire with his minions in India until his demise - it is submitted that petitioner cannot be prosecuted under the PML Act for the alleged sins of her father, inasmuch as, she had no knowledge that her father had acquired the assets that stand in her name with the proceeds of crime - HELD THAT:- The fact remains that 22 cases of serious nature were registered by the police against Sridhar, which include murder, attempt to murder, extortion, criminal intimidation, use of fire arms and criminal conspiracy to commit such offences. It is not in dispute that most of the offences mentioned in the FIRs are schedule offences under the PML Act and therefore, the Enforcement Directorate was justified in registering a case under the PML Act and taking up the investigation. The Enforcement Directorate has conducted extensive investigation and has identified 5 immovable properties in the name of Sridhar, 68 immovable properties in the name of Kumari, his wife, 10 immovable properties in the name of the petitioner, apart from the immovable properties purchased in the name of the other accused. It is not the case of the accused that Sridhar was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and that by sheer dint of hard work expending his sweat and blood, he had acquired the properties.

  Investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate shows that Sridhar never had any legitimate income and that his daughter Dhanalakshmi had not even filed income tax returns, whereas, she owns properties worth around ₹ 19 crores - If this Court, without appreciating the object and spirit of the PML Act, interferes and quashes the prosecution under the PML Act on abstract sympathetic grounds that the offspring of an accused who had amassed wealth by indulging in criminal activities should not be unnecessarily penalised, it would amount to frustrating the very will of the Parliament. In fact, the Courts should bear in mind that under Section 24 of the PML Act, the onus is on the accused to prove that such proceeds of crime are not involved in money laundering.

  Finally, a complete reading of the complaint shows that there are prima facie materials for the trial to proceed against the petitioner and hence, in exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed - this criminal original petition is dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (2) TMI 1275 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Demand of interest under 24(3) of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act - payment of additional sales tax and surcharge on reopening of assessment - HELD THAT:- It is not as if the petitioner tried to evade payment of tax. He paid tax in terms of the self assessment made by him. When it was reopened and demand was made for payment of additional sales tax and surcharge, the petitioner complied with the said demand. Only if the petitioner had not complied with the demand set out in the assessment order passed by the respondent, the question of levy of interest will arise. In view of the prompt compliance by the petitioner, there is no justification in making demand for payment of interest.

  More than anything else, identically placed persons were given the benefit of waiver. On a person, who has paid the statutory levies, fastening liability to pay interest appears to be highly inequitable. The demand for payment of interest is not sustainable.

  The impugned demand order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (2) TMI 1274 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT  
  

  Seeking return of seized currency - two mobile phones - computer and documents - expiry of the statutory period of six months provided in section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Learned advocate, Mr.S.S.Iyer, who has taken us through the various correspondences and has urged that under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 the six month's period after the Seizure Panchnama on 3.4.2019 is also over on 3.4.2020 and there is not a whisper of the seized currency notes in the show cause notice dated 27.11.2020. His correspondence also has not been responded so far as this pertinent issue is concerned. According to him, it is a covered matter as in the case of DEEPAK NATVARLAL SONI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2018 (9) TMI 1912 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT].

  Issue Notice for final disposal, returnable on 8.3.2021.

  ---

• 2021 (2) TMI 1273 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH
  

  Seeking for rectification of Register of Members of the Applicant Company - cancellation of excess shares allotted to Respondent No. 1 - section 59 of the Companies Act,2013, R/ w Rule 70 of the NCLT, Rules 2016 - HELD THAT:- The Applicant has not impleaded necessary Party i.e. RBI, on whose letter, the instant Application has been filed. The RBI has refused to accept the request of the Applicant - without approaching the Registrar of Companies, present Application has been filed contending that they have received no objection from Respondent No. 1 (Zephyr Peacock India) vide their letter dated 13thDecember, 2019. And they have also sought an order the requirement of advertisement to be published as per Rule 70 read with Rule 35 of the NCLT, 2016 be dispensed with and is not required to be convened. The Second Respondent could not examine as to whether the issue in question would fall within their purview/jurisdiction or not. Therefore, they have filed formal reply without adverting the main issue in question.

  RBI, has refused to accept the request of the Applicant to accept the violation of FEMA Regulations by saying it is responsibility of Applicant to adhere to those Regulations - filing of instant Company petition is misconceived, not maintainable, and it is liable to be dismissed.

  Petition dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (2) TMI 1272 - ITAT HYDERABAD
  

  Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - disallowance u/s 43B towards PF, ESI and TDS - HELD THAT:- AO has failed to record the reasons to the satisfaction of the section 147, under which, the assessment was reopened. Further, as contended by the ld. AR that there is neither any new information available with the AO nor any new tangible material in hand other than the information already existing in original assessment and further, there was no failure on the part of the appellant company to fully and truly disclose the material facts necessary for the assessment..

  DR has filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 26, in which, copy of reasons recorded has been placed at pages 1 to 3 and the approval from Pr. CIT is at page 4. We observe that the reasons recorded by the AO, Ward - 1 (3), whereas, assessment was framed by ITO, Ward – 1(2), Hyderabad. From the reasons recorded, we observe that nowhere it is mentioned that there was any incumbency. In the light of these observations, we are of the view that the AO, who has framed the assessment order has not applied his mind properly before reopening the case of the assessee u/s 147 - no sufficient and impeachable reason for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the issuance of notice u/s 148 and consequently passing of assessment u/s 147 of the Act is unsustainable. Accordingly, we quash the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. Since the assessment itself is quashed, additions made on such assessment do not survive. Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2021 (2) TMI 1271 - ITAT AMRITSAR
  

  Addition u/s 40A(3) - payments in question made by the assessee to Government undertakings - payment of legal tender - Whether the cash payments made by the assessee towards purchase of wine to the aforementioned undertakings of the Government, viz. (i) M/s Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd; and (ii) M/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd., which as per him were to be considered as an arm of the State Government that had received the payment in legal tender, i.e., in Indian currency, would by virtue of the exception carved out in Rule 6DD(b) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 be saved from the disallowance contemplated in Sec. 40A(3)? - HELD THAT:- Referring to tests laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Som Prakash Rekhi [1980 (11) TMI 113 - SUPREME COURT] we are of the considered view, that as both of the aforesaid undertakings, viz. (i) M/s Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd; and (ii) M/s Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd., are State Government Companies wherein 100% share holding is held by the State Government; there is an existence of deep and pervasive control of the State Government on the said undertakings, and the full control of their working, policy and framework is vested with the State Government, therefore, they can safely be brought within the meaning of “State”.

  As regards the requirements contemplated in Rule 6DD(b) that the payment is required to be made in legal tender, we find that the term “legal tender” has not been defined in the Income-Tax Act.

  The dictionary meaning of “legal tender” as mentioned in “Aiyer’s Law Terms and Phrases”, is “the coinage of a country in which debts may be paid and which the creditor is bound to accept”. The dictionary meaning of the coin is; “metal used for the time being as money and stamped and issued by the authorities of the state in order to be used.” Therefore, it can be said that “legal tender” means the currency of a state which is to be used as money. Backed up our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view, that as in the case of the assessee before us the payments in question to the aforementioned State Government undertakings have been made by the assessee in Indian currency, therefore, it can safely, or in fact inescapably be concluded that the same have been made in legal tender.

  Thus the payments made by the assessee to the aforementioned Government undertakings , which could safely be held as a part of the Government would fall within the realm of the exception carved out in Clause (b) of Rule 6DD of the Income- Tax Rues, 1962, qua, the applicability of the provisions of Sec. 40A(3) of the Act - Payments in question made by the assessee to the State Government entities in legal tender were covered by the exception contemplated in Rule 6DD(b) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, therefore, the same could not have been disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act, uphold his order. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2021 (2) TMI 1270 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
  

  Delayed employees' contribution towards ESI and PF - assessee's failure to pay the employees' contribution of ESI & PF within the prescribed due date under the relevant Statute as per section 36(1)(va) - deposit paid before the due date of filing of the return of income u/s. 139(1) - Scope of amendment - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is not in dispute that employees' contribution to ESI and PF collected by the assessee from its employees had been deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. We find that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court as well as Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. We further note that though the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed the various decisions of Hon'ble High Courts including the decision of the jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court but has referred to the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021.

  It is a consistent position across various Benches of the Tribunal including Chandigarh Benches that the amendment which has been brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 shall apply w.e.f. assessment year 2021-22 as also evident from the amendment as so introduced in the statue and subsequent assessment years and the impugned assessment year being assessment year 2018-19, the said amendment cannot be applied in the instant case

  Thus the addition made by way of adjustment while processing the return of income u/s. 143(1) so made by the CPC towards the deposit of employees' contribution towards ESI and PF paid before the due date of filing of the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, is hereby directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2021 (2) TMI 1269 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
  

  Condonation of delay - 234 days delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the assessee's appeal suffers from 234 days delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that due to the outbreak of pandemic, COVID-19, the assessee was unable to file the appeal in time as prescribed by the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on Civil Appeal [2019 (12) TMI 1293 - SUPREME COURT] in which it was held that such delay supported by cogent reasons deserves to be condoned, so as to make a way for the cause of substantial justice. Therefore, after considering the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, we hold that the assessee's impugned delay of 234 days is neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to the circumstances beyond it's control. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 234 days and remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the assessee's appeal on merits. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

  ---

• 2021 (2) TMI 1268 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH
  

  Seeking to direct the Liquidator to accept the claim submitted by the Applicant and treat the Applicant as a secured financial creditor - rights and privileges of a secured financial creditor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - reconstitution of SCC within 7 days from the date of disposal of this Application - HELD THAT:- The object of the Code is to see that the CIRP Process/Liquidation process is to be continued in a time-bound manner as prescribed in the Provisions of the Code and Rules made there under. The CIRP and the Liquidation process, if not completed within the stipulated period, the object of the Code will be defeated. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant that the Applicant can avail opportunity with reference to Public Notification issued by Liquidator, even though its claim was rejected during CIRP by IRP/RP, is not correct and not tenable. While it is true that all claimants, which include claimants during CIRP, have to make/reiterate their claim again to Liquidator, but old claimants will reiterate their claim made earlier in CIRP, and fresh claimants, who have not availed opportunity during CIRP, can make their claim - the Liquidator cannot ignore the decisions taken by IRP/RP and reverse them except any new development takes place in such claims. Moreover, there cannot be two claims in respect of same debt.

  It is not in dispute that RP, as early as on 3rd March, 2020 replied to the Applicant stating that its claim has been updated on the website of the Corporate Debtor and stand rejected. Since the Liquidator has accepted the claims of Allottee in question, the Applicant cannot ask to replace them, that too without impleading those allottees in the instant Application. The Respondent has considered the case of Applicant and rejected its case with cogent reasons and thus the impugned rejection cannot be found fault with. The Applicant, admittedly has right against the allottees in question to proceed basing on various documents executed between the parties - the Applicant failed to make out any case so as to interfere in the impugned action of Respondent.

  Application dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (2) TMI 1267 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
  

  Failure of the assessee to deposit the employees' contribution to PF/ESI for having not paid the same on or before the prescribed due dates as per section u/s. 36(1)(va) - Payment made before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is not in dispute that the assessee deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belatedly in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, the said deposits were made prior to filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has already been adjudicated in RAJA RAM [2021 (11) TMI 370 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] wherein addition on account of deposits of employees contribution of ESI & PF prior to filing of the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, in both the years under consideration prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 1.4.2021 vide Explanation 5, are deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2021 (2) TMI 1266 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI BENCH
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The procedure in relation to the Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by the Financial Creditor is delineated under Section 7 of the Code, wherein only Financial Creditor / Financial Creditors can file an application. As per Section 7(1) of the Code, an application could be maintained by a Financial Creditor either by itself or jointly with other Financial Creditors - the expressions Financial Creditor and Financial debt have been defined in Section 5(7) and 5(8) of the Code and precisely Financial debt is a debt along with interest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for time value of money.

  NPA was declared on 05.04.2008. Consequently, applicant bank has initiated action against the corporate debtor under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 as well as under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 on 19/10/2015 and case is registered as OA no. 461/2015 and on 02/07/2019 DRT passed the order and directed to pay the amount within 30 days from the date of order and on the basis of that petitioner claimed the date of default is on 02/08/2019 - action taken under SARFAESI Act cannot be counted for the period of exclusion u/s 14 of the limitation Act and since NPA was declared on 05/04/2008, therefore, the date of default is date of NPA. And if we shall calculate the period of limitation from 05/04/2008, i.e date of NPA then the present application is filed in the year 2019, much after the period of limitation prescribed under Article 137 of Limitation Act, i.e, three years when right to apply accrue. Hence the present petition is barred by limitation.

  Application is dismissed as barred by limitation.

  ---

• 2021 (2) TMI 1265 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Deduction u/s 10B - scope of approval by the STPI - HELD THAT:- The principle accepted by the revenue for 10 earlier years and 4 subsequent years to the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 was that the entire expenditure is to be allowed against business income and no expenditure is to be allocated to capital gains. Once this principle was accepted and consistency applied and followed, the revenue was bound by it. Unless of course it wanted to change the practice without any change in law or change in facts therein, the basis for the change in practice should have been mentioned either in the assessment order or atleast pointed out to the Tribunal when it passed the impugned order. None of this has happened - all have proceeded on the basis that there is no change in the principle which has been consistency applied for the earlier assessment years and also for the subsequent assessment years. Therefore, the view of the Tribunal in allowing the respondent's appeal on the principle of consistency cannot in the present facts be faulted with, as it is in accord with the case BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. (BSNL) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2006 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT]

  The assessee is eligible to claim deduction under section 10B of the Act by virtue of being 100 % EOU approved by the STPI.

  Alternate claim u/s 10A - The assessee contented that condition prescribed under section 10A and 10B of the Act are more or less same and it fulfills all the conditions specified under section 10A of the Act. Thus it should be allowed exemption under section 10A of the Act if not allowed under section 10B of the Act. As such we note that the AO was allowed opportunity vide remand report to verify the fulfillment of the condition specified u/s 10A of the Act. But he restrained himself from making any comment as the same was already verified by him during assessment proceeding. From, this we safely assume that the all condition has been fully met by the assessee. Now the question arise that can the assessee be allowed exemption under section 10A alternatively where it has made claim under other section inadvertently? In our considered view the answer stand positive in view of the fact that the matter has come to various judicial authority wherein it has held that a valid claim of the assessee cannot be deprived merely because, the assessee has not made such claim in return of income filed under section 139.

  Accordingly we direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

  Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - HELD THAT:- The Provisions of Section 147 of the Act, authorizes the AO, if he has "reasons to believe" that the income has escaped assessment, to assess or reassess the income escaped from assessment. Now to form the reasons to believe for the escapement of income, AO first, should be in possession of some /fresh new material which was previously not available with him viz a viz it impacts the aspect, that there is some undisclosed income.

  We note that all the materials used by the AO in the initiation of reassessment proceedings were available before him during the assessment proceedings and after application of his mind the AO framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 01-12-2011. Therefore, the same cannot be used for initiating the proceedings under Section 147 - As such there has to be some new/fresh information on record, which requires a fresh examination. When there is no change in the facts and circumstances of case, the power to re-open u/s. 147/148 cannot be exercised, since at the time of initial assessment a view was formed on the available facts, and the same cannot be re-viewed again.

  Our case was duly assessed for A.Y. 2009-10 by the ld.A.O and assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act was passed dated 01.12.2011. Deduction under section 10B was allowed in the original assessment after enquiry. Now the assessee has been served with notice u/s.147 of the Act stating that the deduction u/s 10B was not allowable. The reassessment proceedings initiated on this ground are not valid - Thus, the action u/s.147 of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10 is not legal. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2021 (2) TMI 1264 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Proof of lack of enquiry - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 (4) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has explained the meaning of "erroneous" as an order which is not in accordance with law, or which has been passed by the Income Tax Officer without making any enquiry in undue haste.

  The Hon'ble Bombay High Court further explained the meaning of "Prejudiced" as "an order can be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue if it is not in accordance with law in consequence whereof, lawful revenue due to the state has not be realized or cannot be realized."

  Facts mentioned elsewhere clearly show that this is not a case of lack of enquiry or assessment being framed in haste. Proper enquiries were made by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and after considering all the facts and evidences, the Assessing Officer took a view which is a plausible view. Therefore, it is not open to the ld. PCIT to direct a re-enquiry as he is of a different view.

  We are of the considered opinion that the assessment order dated 26.12.2018 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2021 (2) TMI 1263 - SC ORDER
  

  Prayer for de-tagging of cases - Petitioner has been advised to explore the remedy under the provisions of “Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020” for settlement of disputed tax involved in the present petition and has also filed application seeking permission to withdraw the special leave petition with liberty to revive the petition, if need arises.

  Accordingly, this petition and pending applications are disposed of as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty.

  ---

• 2021 (2) TMI 1262 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Money Laundering - drug trafficking - possession of Heroin - international syndicate of laundering the money generated out of drug trafficking in Australia and other countries - involvement of the Respondents in criminal activities that constitute offences under Part A and Part C of the schedule to PMLA - HELD THAT:- The Respondents No. 1 and 2, before this Court, have been acquitted of charges under Section 420/468/471 of the IPC and Section 29 of the NDPS Act, vide Order dated 3rd August 2015. It was observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Judge, Special Court, Amritsar that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the concerned Respondents. The Petitioner filed a supplementary complaint on the basis of findings and recovery made during further investigation. Thereafter, taking into account all the material before it, the learned Additional Sessions Judge discharged the Respondents of Section 3/4 of the PMLA and Section 20/22/27A of the NDPS Act. The present Petitioner is aggrieved by the said Order of discharge and has impugned the same by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

  The legislation of PMLA had been enacted with the objective to prevent and control money laundering and to confiscate and seize the property obtained from the laundered money. The PMLA is a specific and special enactment to combat the menace of laundering of money, keeping in view the illegal practices that have been surfacing with respect to transfer and use of tainted money and subsequent acquisition of properties by using the same - The offence of money laundering under the PMLA is therefore, layered and multi-fold and includes the stages preceding and succeeding the offence of laundering money as well.

  No scheduled offence was made out against the Respondents, this Court finds that an investigation and proceedings into the PMLA could not have been established against them at the first instance - This Court in its revisional jurisdiction will not proceed into the enquiry of the records, documents and other evidence in consideration before the learned Trial Court, but shall constrain itself to the findings of the learned Court below in the impugned order and to the question whether there is any patent illegality, error apparent on record or incorrectness.

  In the present matter, the Petitioner had filed a Supplementary Complaint based on certain additional documents received by it against the Respondents, including, the Prosecution Report of Commonwealth Director of the Public Prosecution by the Australian Federal Police. The Petitioner based its findings against the Respondents on the said documents and alleged certain facts based on the apprehension that the amount being transferred from the business accounts of the Respondents were proceeds of drug trafficking and hence, was laundered money - the Additional Sessions Judge was not satisfied that the apprehension and suspicion of the Petitioner was well founded and even for the offences under the NDPS, no recovery was brought on record. It was observed that the additional evidence did not disclose prima facie any material to infer that the accused persons, Respondents herein, were involved in the commission of the offences alleged against them.

  This Court finds force in the argument that since no offences were made out against the Respondents as specified in the Schedule of the PMLA, the offence under Section 3/4 of the PMLA also, do not arise as the involvement in a scheduled offence is a pre-requisite to the offence of money laundering. The Petitioner was not able to establish the allegations against the Respondents and as such the material produced was not sufficient to find guilt against them - there is no apparent error, gross illegality or impropriety found in the Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

  This Court does not find any cogent reason to interfere with the Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, dated 15th May, 2017, in the revisional jurisdiction - petition dismissed.

  ---

1 ....2345678910........ 69