|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1441 Records
-
2025 (5) TMI 1341
Denial of cross-examination process of witness - Importance of cross examination of the witnesses whose statements have been utilized by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order - ACIT restricted cross examination process by denying the questions asked by the Petitioner during cross examination - As decided by HC [2023 (6) TMI 94 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] as gone through the directions in the remand order wherein he has allowed the appellant, cross examination of the witnesses whose statements have been utilized by the AO in the assessment order. There is no ambiguity in the said directions.
We hereby direct the petitioner to file petition for recall of the witnesses who have been cross-examined and discharged, to put them the question which have been initially discarded by the AO.
HELD THAT:- We are clearly of the opinion that the impugned judgment/order of HC is unsustainable and should not have been passed.
The High Court ought not to have interjected and interfered in the manner in which the statements of witnesses were being recorded by the Assessing Officer to submit a remand report.
It is the discretion of the appellate authority, that is CIT (A) before whom the appellate proceedings or the assessing officer before whom the remand proceedings are pending to decide the questions to be put the witnesses. Of-course the assessee is entitled to put cross questions on the statement made and other relevant aspects.
We are informed and it is recorded in the order [2024 (7) TMI 1637 - SC ORDER] that the cross-examination of witnesses on behalf of the respondent was completed, and the remand report has been submitted by the Assessing Officer to the appellate authority. It is stated that the objections filed by the respondent, Madhu Korah, are pending before the appellate authority.
The objections filed by the respondent, Madhu Korah, will be dealt with by the CIT(A).
We hereby record that the appellate authority, that is, the CIT(A) will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations and directions in the impugned judgment/order of HC.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1340
Unexplained money u/s 69A - deposit made after the demonetization notification on 8th November 2016 - HC [2024 (12) TMI 1346 - ORISSA HIGH COURT] held explanation offered by assessee was no explanation at all. Nature or source of acquisition of the money not explained could only invite opinion of the AO of unexplained money.
HELD THAT:- Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and having gone through the materials on record, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1339
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - mandatory requirement of recording reasons - HELD THAT:- In Pankaj Garg vs. Meenu Garg & Anr. [2013 (2) TMI 924 - SUPREME COURT] reiterated the settled position of law holding that an order, which does not contained any reason, is no order in the eyes of law.
Since the order passed by the AO is bereft of any cogent or plausible reasons, the same is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the AO to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. If the AO still comes to the conclusion that notice u/s 148 is necessary, then he shall record detailed reasons for arriving at such conclusion. AO is directed to decide the case as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 31.08.2025.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1338
Validity of assessment orders - Period of limitation u/s 153B - ‘Exchange of Information - Indo-Switzerland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [Indo-Swiss DTAA] - whether the period of one year is required to be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for passing the assessment order?
HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that if the said period is excluded from the time available u/s 153B for making the assessment / reassessment order on account of the Revenue making a reference in terms of the Agreement u/s 90 assessment orders were passed within the period of limitation. AO had passed the assessment order on 04.03.2015 and the time period of passing the assessment order was available till 31.03.2015.
Decision of Supreme Court In Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow v. CIT & Anr. (2016) 12 SCC 32 considered. [2008 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] - It is apparent from the above, that but for the specific directions issued by the Supreme Court to treat this decision as settling the law prospectively – the effect of which was to save the orders issued under Section 142(2A) of the Act that were issued prior to the court handing down its ruling – the assessments made would have to be set aside as fresh assessments would be barred by limitation. It is in the aforesaid view that the learned ASG had made a request for prospective ruling, which was acceded to by the Supreme Court. It is implicit that if the directions issued under Section 142 (2A) of the Act were held to be invalid, the benefit of exclusion of the period under Clause (ii) of the Explanation to Section 153B of the Act would not be available.
On a plain reading of Clause (ix) of the Explanation to Section 153B of the Act, the exclusion of time taken for obtaining the information (or one year) for completion of the assessment under Section 153A of the Act is applicable only if a reference for exchange of information has to be made as per the Agreement under Section 90/90A of the Act. It is necessary that reference be made in terms of the agreement. In this case, the benefit of exclusion of time by virtue of Explanation (ix) of Section 153B of the Act would, thus, be available only if the reference was made in terms of Indo-Swiss DTAA. However, as noted above, the request as made was not in terms of the Indo-Swiss DTAA. It was contrary to the limitations as expressly specified under Article 14 of the Amending Protocol.
Questions to law as framed are answered against the Revenue and in the negative; that is, against the Revenue and in favour of the Assesses.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1337
Denial of credit for TDS - directions be issued to the respondent to pass an order granting refund of tax due, after adjusting the TDS which was deducted in respect of payments received or accrued during financial year [FY] 2006-07, along with up to date interest.
HELD THAT:- As in absence of the Revenue locating the record, the information as provided by Sigma Freudenberg NOK Pvt. Ltd. was required to be considered to reach a conclusive finding regarding deduction and deposit of TDS as claimed by the petitioner.
It is material to note that the AO has not controverted any of the facts as set out by Sigma Freudenberg NOK Pvt. Ltd. in its response to the verification sought by the AO. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, it would be necessary to accept the said communication as correct.
We consider it apposite to dispose of the present petition directing the AO to consider the response furnished by Sigma Freudenberg NOK Pvt. Ltd. as correct, unless it determines otherwise, and process the petitioner’s request on the aforesaid basis as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from date.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1336
Reopening of assessment - numerous individual assessees have taken entry to LTCG by paying its unaccounted money - HELD THAT:- AO has verified the contract note and the share certificate submitted by the assessee and other details of the transactions done by the assessee as well as the details furnished in the return of income and then has stated that the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction of shares of M/s. Tuni Textiles Mills Ltd. and subsequent earning of exempt LTCG by the assessee through the transaction in the said shares clearly indicate that the claim of the assessee regarding earning of significant LTCG exempt under Section 10 (38) requires deeper investigation and analysis to uncover the real nature of the alleged regular/prudent transaction. Thereafter, the assessing officer has taken note of the background of the investigation done by the department, discussed about the background of the company namely M/s. Tuni Textiles Mills Ltd. and taken note of the profit and loss account of the said company and its balance sheet, asset dt. March 31, 2012, statement of cash flow for the year ended 31.03.2012 and come to the conclusion that the fundamentals of the company are very weak and it clearly indicates that abnormal price rise in the shares of the company is not natural or normal but artificially manipulated.
AO took into consideration the stand taken by the assessee in their reply and has recorded reasons to hold that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus and, therefore, the only escapable conclusion is that numerous individual assessees have taken entry to LTCG by paying its unaccounted money.
Furthermore, that the transaction in shares of M/s. Tuni Textiles Mills Ltd. by the assessee was a pre-arranged transaction in the form of accommodation entry managed through collusive transactions by group of entry operators and shell entities.
Tribunal committed an error in coming to a conclusion that the assessing officer has not applied his mind for reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act.
Tribunal has not examined the reasons set out by the appellate authority which has re-examined the factual position, taken note of the grounds raised by the assessee and their oral submissions and has in detail discussed about the lowering of funds and how the funds reached the concerned beneficiaries and has factually found that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries who received accommodation entry which was used to avail bogus LTCG/STCL.
Tribunal committed a serious factual error in coming to the conclusion that there was no application of mind of the assessing officer and erroneously elevated the status of CBDT which is meant as a guiding note of the assessing officer to have an effect of regulation. Therefore, the order impugned in this appeal deserves to be quashed. Decided against assessee.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1335
TP Adjustment - intra group services provided by Associated Enterprise - Application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method - HELD THAT:- Assessee had benchmarked the said international transaction in relation to the allocation of such services by using TNMM as the most appropriate method. TPO held that the alleged services were nil on an application of the Comparable Uncontrolled Price [CUP] method.
CIT(A) as well as the ITAT had found that the Assessee had received services and, therefore, it was necessary that the ALP be determined. Undeniably, the transfer pricing study of the Assessee could not be rejected unless the conditions as set out in Section 92C (3) of the Act were satisfied. It is the Assessee’s case that such conditions are not satisfied and, therefore, the TPO cannot make any adjustment on account of intra group services.
TPO had proceeded on the basis that the Assessee has been unable to establish that it had derived any benefits from such services and therefore, no independent entity would pay for such services without any cost benefit analysis.
In the aforesaid circumstances it does not appear that the TPO had examined the transfer pricing analysis furnished by the Assessee regarding the value of the services received.
CIT(A) as well as the ITAT had concurrently found that the Assessee had received intra group services. It is thus, necessary for the TPO to examine the transfer pricing studies furnished by the Assessee in that perspective.
There is no cavil that if the conditions as specified under Section 92C (3) are not satisfied, the TPO cannot proceed to make any adjustment. In the present case, the learned ITAT has remanded the matter to the TPO to consider afresh as the TPO’s fundamental premise that the Assessee had not received any services, has been rejected.
We find no infirmity in the learned ITAT’s decision in remanding the matter to the TPO to consider afresh. Needless to state the TPO is also required to consider whether any of the conditions u/s 92C (3) of the Act are satisfied before proceeding to make transfer pricing adjustment on account of intra group services. No substantial question of law arises.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1334
Deemed Income u/s 41 - Outstanding liability - Addition of the amounts reflected as payable to two banks - Assessee earnestly contended before this Court that the liabilities were reflected in its books of account as “book overdraft” and not “bank overdraft” - AO concluded that the outstanding balance, as reflected, was not genuine and, accordingly, added the same to the returned income of the Assessee. CIT(A) accepted the Assessee’s contention and deleted the said addition.
HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is conceded that the books of account reflected inflated outstanding in excess of the statement of accounts furnished by the Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank. The cheques claimed to have been issued by the Assessee, on account of which the Assessee’s books reflected a higher outstanding, were not presented in FY 2007-08 as well. Thus, in fact, these cheques were never presented to the concerned banks.
The account maintained with Punjab National Bank was an escrow account (and not an overdraft account) and could be utilized only for specified purposes. Therefore, the balance in the said account could not be in negative and the liability reflected in the books simply did not exist.
Assessee claimed that it is involved in real estate, was obliged to deposit a part of the consideration received from its customers in the escrow account for being used for specified purposes for development of the projects.
Assessee claimed that the cheques were issued for the purchase of materials from various vendors. However, due to the downturn in the real estate market, its customers failed to make payments, and the Assessee could not deposit the required funds into the Punjab National Bank’s escrow account.
Consequently, the Assessee returned the materials purchased in FY 2007-08 and recovered cheques issued to various suppliers. Thus, in any event, the banks could not be reflected as creditors, as they had not extended the advance as reflected by the Assessee in its books. If the Assessee’s claim is accepted, the unpaid vendors had to be reflected as sundry creditors.
ITAT did not accept the Assessee’s contention, primarily due to a lack of sufficient evidence, and there was no material on record to show that the Assessee had, in fact, received the goods, which were subsequently returned.
The impugned order also does not reflect that any documentary evidence was produced by the Assessee to establish the said transactions as claimed.
Question whether the transactions, as claimed by the Assessee, existed and were genuine are questions of fact. We are unable to find that the decision of the ITAT suffers from any perversity or patent illegality.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1333
Reopening of assessment beyond limitation period - Amounts paid by the petitioner to its AEs - HELD THAT:- As apparent from the information enclosed with the impugned notice that the amounts that have been remitted – which the AO alleges have escaped assessment – were paid by the petitioner to its AEs for rendering of services. The question whether the services have been rendered and whether the same were at Arm’s Length Price [ALP] is a contentious issue.
However, it is apparent that the income alleged to have escaped assessment is not based on a single occasion or an event spanning over the period in question. It is an amount that is being regularly paid by the petitioner to its AEs overseas, on account of the services which the petitioner claims to have received. It is also not disputed that the payments made by the petitioner were subject matter of the assessments during various previous assessment years and reference for determining the ALP had also been made to the Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO].
In view of the above, the present case does not fall within the exception to Sub-section (1A) of Section 149 of the Act. The issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of this court in M/s. L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Private Limited [2025 (4) TMI 1363 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
The petition is, accordingly, allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1332
Adjustment of refund due against the outstanding demand (pre-deposit) - pre-condition for stay of demand disputed before CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the petitioner had not deposited a sum of Rs. 69,05,933/- for fulfilling the condition of 20% deposit of Rs. 4,91,67,767/- at the material time.
Although the Assessee had preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) disputing the assessments for AY 2016-17 and had also sought a stay of the demand, but it had not deposited 20% of the shortfall to cover 20% of the disputed amount being Rs. 69,05,933/- (Rs. 98,33,553/- being 20% of the disputed demand of Rs. 4,91,67,767/- less an amount of Rs. 29,27,620/- already recovered).
Since the Assessee had not fulfilled the condition for securing a stay of demand, the entire demand in respect of AY 2017-18 remained outstanding. The same has since been recovered from the refund due to the petitioner for AY 2014-15 that has arisen pursuant to the appeal effect order dated 02.01.2024. Assessee was required to make the deposit of the shortfall to cover 20% of the disputed demand either by paying the amount or by adjustment of the refund due at the material time.
We are unable to accept that the adjustment of the amount is contrary to the Office Memorandum dated 31.07.2017 as claimed by the Assessee.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1331
TDS u/s 194A - Credit co-operative society - Interest payments made to its member as per the provisions of section 194A(3)(v) - HELD THAT:- As can be seen from the statutory provisions and the petitioner society being undisputedly Cooperative Society registered under The Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, the exemption for TDS under Section 194A (3) V of the IT Act, is clearly admissible in so far as the petitioner society is concerned and consequently the impugned show cause notice is clearly without jurisdiction or authority of law and the same is being illegal and arbitrary, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the service pursuant to the impugned show cause notice.
The entire claim of the respondent in the show cause notice is to the effect that the provisions of Section 194A (3)(V) were not applicable to the petitioner since the same was not a Cooperative Society within the meaning of the Section 2(19).
However, wide and expansive definition contained in Section 2(19) which includes the petitioner society which has been registered under the provisions of The Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, the impugned show cause notice deserves to be quashed.
In so far as the contention urged by the respondent that the petitioner would be entitled to raise all contentions by submitting a suitable reply is concerned, in the light of the finding recorded by me above that the impugned show cause notice is without jurisdiction or authority of law and that the petitioner was entitled to exemption u/s 194A (3)(V), the question of continuing further proceedings pursuant to the impugned show cause notice would not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1330
Reopening notice issued against deceased assessee - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that impugned notice u/s 148A(b) is issued in name of Shri Yoghesh Somalal Joshi who had already expired on 09/06/2020. The petitioner is already registered as legal heir of late Shri Yoghesh Somalal Joshi.
The order u/s 148A(d) is also passed in name of the deceased Shri Yoghesh Somalal Joshi as well as the notice u/s 148 is also issued in his name. Therefore, impugned notice u/s 148A(b) and the order u/s 148A(b) as well as the notice under Section 148 of the Act are not sustainable as the same are issued against the deceased person.
This petition is accordingly allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1329
Disallowing the special deduction u/s 42 - Business for prospecting, etc., for mineral oil - HELD THAT:- The admitted question in these appeals are no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Joshi Technologies International Inc [2015 (5) TMI 521 - SUPREME COURT] as held from the nature of allowances specified in this provision, it is clear that such allowances are otherwise inadmissible on general principles, for e.g. allowances relating to diminution or exhaustion of wasting capital assets or allowances in respect of expenditure which would be regarded as on capital account on the ground that it brings an asset of enduring benefit into existence or constitutes initial expenditure incurred in setting up the profit earning machinery in motion.
It is for this reason this Section itself clarifies that the provisions of this Act would be deemed to have been modified to the extent necessary to give effect to the terms of the agreement, as otherwise, the other provisions of the Act specifically deny such deductions. A fortiorari, the PSC entered into between the parties becomes an independent accounting regime and its provisions prevail over generally accepted principles of accounting that are used for ascertaining taxable income (See Enron Oil and Gas India Limited [2008 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT].
In the present case, it is an admitted fact that conditions mentioned in Section 42 of the Act are not fulfilled. In the two PSCs, no provision is made for making admissible the aforesaid allowances to the assessee. It is obvious that the Assessing Officer could not have granted these allowances/deductions to the assessee in the absence of such stipulations, a mandatory requirement, in the PSCs.
The appellant is conscious of this position. It is for this reason the attempt of the appellant was to read the provisions of MPSC into the agreement. Decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1328
Addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) - difference between the stamp duty value and the agreement value of two residential flats purchased by the assessee - not referring the valuation matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer ("DVO") despite the assessee's request ? - whether there is evidence that the assessee paid the consideration or part thereof in a mode other than cash on or before the date of agreement for transfer of the immovable properties.
HELD THAT:- In the present case, it cannot be disputed that the value adopted by the stamp duty authority exceeds the value of the residential flats purchased by the assessee on the date of transfer and the value so adopted is also not in dispute in any appeal, revision or reference before any Authority, Court or High Court. Thus, both the conditions of section 50C(2) of the Act are fulfilled in the present case. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the AO erred in not referring the valuation of the residential flats to the DVO.
The impugned order also suffers from the same vice as despite recording submission of the assessee in this regard, no reference was made to the DVO for the valuation as per the provision of the Act.
Accordingly,we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication after seeking a valuation report from the DVO as per the provisions of the Act. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1327
Addition u/s 56(2)(x) - treating difference between the Stamp Duty Value and purchase consideration as income from other sources - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted position that assessee purchased flat along with three other co-owners.
Admittedly, the assessee is having 32.5% share. Before us, the assessee has filed copy of allotment letter dated 12.03.2010 wherein the sale consideration of Rs. 60.00 lacs is clearly mentioned. The allotment letter also contained the reference of a deposit of earnest money by way of post-dated cheque 05.04.2010 and Rs. 1,51,421/- on perusal of bank statement, we find that said cheque was cleared on 19.04.2010.
The allotment letter also contained the payment of schedule of consideration. We further find that Rs. 3.00 lacs was also paid by assessee by way of cheque on 04.03.2011. Remaining consideration on assessee’s share was paid on 20.06.2017 and 27.06.2017 that is soon before registration of agreement.
Thus, we find that Rs. 4,51,421/- was made in financial year 2010-11. We find that the assessee has successfully proved the fact that he has made part payment of consideration on the date of agreement in April 2011. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the benefit of first and second proviso to section 56(2)(x). Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1326
Disallowance of interest expenses u/s 36(1)(iii) - whether direct nexus established to the investment? - assessee has made “non current investment” in its subsidiary and it is having borrowed funds on which interest was paid - as submitted by the assessee that the funds were borrowed for the purpose of business and the investment was made in the group concern which was made out of the interest free funds available with the assessee in the shape of equity capital and reserves
HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is seen that though the AO has made disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of interest and under section 37(1) towards the management fee for making such investment however, both the disallowances were computed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The provisions of Rule 8D(2) could only be invoked if the AO is satisfied that the assessee has incurred certain expenses to earn exempt income.
It is an accepted position that in the instant case, no exempt income is earned by the assessee company thus, the action of the AO in computing the amount of disallowances u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act in terms of the formula provided in Rule 8D(2) of the Rules is patently wrong.
As seen that for making disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) nexus has to establish between the borrowed funds and investment made. In the instant case, the assessee has installed wind power plant with the funds borrowed from various financial institutions which had provided the finances in terms of the agreements according to which re-payment must be as per the repayment schedule provided under the agreement and the assessee has no right to make additional payments. Further when the assessee is having interest free funds and also cash reserves which were utilized for making investment in the group companies therefore, provisions of section 36(1)(iii) cannot be invoke.
As interest was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and the Ld.Sr.DR has failed to controvert the findings given by the Ld.CIT(A). Thus, we find that no infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made u/s 36(1)(iii) and 37(1) - Decided against revenue.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1325
Revision u/s 263 - eligibility of deduction u/s 80IC - as per CIT AO had not carried out any detailed inquiries whilst accepting the assessee’s above claim - HELD THAT:- We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant first and foremost argument as a perusal of the case file indicates that it was an instance of a “limited” scrutiny for examining the above section 80IC deduction issue only. And that the AO firstly issued his section 143(2) notice dated 22.09.2019 followed by yet another section 142(1) notice dated 17.12.2020, which stood duly replied on the very specific issue. That being the case, we are of the considered view that the AO’s scrutiny assessment could not be termed as having either not examined the above section 80IC issue or that of an inadequate inquiry, as the case may be.
Assessee has been converted from a proprietary concern to a partnership firm formed in the relevant previous year which disentitles it from claiming the impugned deduction in light of Goel Udyog [2010 (3) TMI 903 - ITAT DELHI] - We find no substance in the Revenue’s instant second argument in light of Mega Packages[2011 (8) TMI 738 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] having decided the very issues in assessee’s favour and against the department. That being the case, we hold that judicial discipline requires us to follow hon’ble higher judicial forum’s adjudication than that of a learned coordinate bench. We accordingly reject the Revenue’s instant second substantive argument in very terms.
Invoking section 80IC(4) - It could hardly dispute that the same comes into play only in case the eligible unit is formed either by splitting up or reconstruction of a business already in existence or transfer to a new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose, as the case may be. We hold that none of these conditions are satisfied in the assessee’s instant case as the facts herein do not fall thereunder. The Revenue’s instant last argument also fails in very terms.
Thus, as per Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] PCIT has erred in law and on facts in revising the Assessing Officer’s above regular assessment in his impugned section 263 revision direction under challenge, stand reversed therefore. Assessee’s appeal is allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1324
Levy of penalty for under reporting of income u/s 270A - form 68 was filed beyond 30 day before the AO - claim of ex-gratia (capital receipt) denied and treated the amount as profit in lieu of salary under the head salaries and raised a demand - HELD THAT:- We find that the show cause notice was initiated u/s. 274 r/w section 270A for under reported income which is in consequence of misreporting of income, the assessee was not eligible to claim the immunity u/s. 270AA and hence did not file form 68 before the AO well within the prescribed period as stated in sub-section (2) of section 270AA i.e. within one month from the end of the month in which the assessment order was received by the assessee.
AO passed the penalty order and levied penalty @ 50% of the taxes only for the reason for under-reporting of income and which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
Therefore, the assessee became eligible to claim immunity from imposition of penalty u/s. 270A of the Act and thus has satisfactorily fulfilled the condition of section 270AA(3) of the Act.
We are of the considered view that though form 68 was filed beyond 30 day before the AO, the assessee had fulfilled the conditions of 270AA. Hence, assessee is eligible for immunity from penalty - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1323
Exemption u/s 11 - application of funds for non charitable purposes - CIT (A) simply dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee has not furnished complete copy of the order u/s 143(1)
HELD THAT:- The total receipts were spent on 143, the charitable purposes and thus, assessee was not having any net surplus during the year. From the perusal of order u/s 143(1) of the Act, we observed that though the assessee has disclosed all the facts qua the gross receipts as well as application of funds in the return of income, the ld. AO CPC failed to consider the application of funds to the tune of ₹ 1,41,27,960/-, resulting into assessment of income of the trust at gross receipts i.e. ₹ 1,41,27,960/-.The order of the ld. AO CPC is apparently wrong and against the facts and information disclosed by the assessee in the return of income.
We note that the restoration of issue to the file of the ld. CIT (A) would not serve any meaningful purpose as this is a open and shut case before us. The assessee is running a educational institution and income is exempt u/s 11.
We note that the gross receipts of the assessee was same as application of funds comprising revenue expenditure and capital expenditure. Considering these facts on record, we are inclined to set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to allow the application of funds accordingly. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (5) TMI 1322
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - correct jurisdiction to issue notice - addition u/s 68 - assessee contends that no share capital or loan was received during the year and the order passed by DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata was without jurisdiction
HELD THAT:- Since the case of the assessee had been transferred u/s 127 of the Act to Ahmedabad where the Assessing Officer had made the assessment prior to finalization of the assessment proceeding by the Assessing Officer of Kolkata; therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer, Kolkata being without jurisdiction was invalid and the same is hereby quashed. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
............
|
9911796707
