|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1216 Records
-
2021 (11) TMI 1098
Denial of exemption u/s 11 - Assessee earned income only by way of interest on FDRs and the expenditure incurred were related to administration expenses only - as per AO Income and expenditure account reflected no charitable activity carried out by the assessee contended that the facts reflected in the financial statements though not denied, do not reflect the complete picture and the factum of having carried out charitable activity nor can it be culled out from the said statement alone - HELD THAT:- As noted by the ITAT in its order in earlier year, as above, that the assessee had only been indulging in construction activity since its creation for a very long period of around 8-10 years, had never itself run the medical facility despite a part of it being completed in the year 2000 and had in fact earlier on decided to lease out the running of its medical facility to a private party in PPP mode, and considering the order of the ITAT in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, holding that the assessee never intended to carry out its stated charitable activity of running the medical college and hospital, and further in view of our findings above that the assessee had virtually sold its facility by leasing it out for 99 years and having no substantial control over it, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the CIT(A) that vis a vis the medical facility being run in PPP mode the assessee cannot be said to be carrying out any charitable activity.
Other contention of assessee that it had amended its objects in 2009 and included therein funding of various medical projects in Government Medical College and Hospitals in Punjab and to which effect it had contributed over the years substantial sum of money, the Ld. DR has pointed out the fallacy in this argument of assessee by drawing our attention to the Memorandum of Understanding the assessee society had entered into with Baba Farid University, filed alongwith submissions of the assessee dated 9/7/2019, where the assessee has contended to have utilized its funds for medical upgradation in the hospital run by it.
DR has pointed out that it was not simplicitor funding of projects in the hospital as claimed by the assessee, but in fact in the nature of investment in the hospital. The Memorandum of Understanding, he pointed out, required revenue sharing between the assessee and Baba Farid University in the ratio 60:40 or 80:20 of the net receipts earned from the project.
As perused the documents and find the contention of the Ld.DR with regards to Revenue sharing arrangement entered into with respect to the amount invested in Baba Farid University of Health and Sciences, to be correct. Even otherwise the Ld.Counsel for the assessee was unable to contradict the same. It is clear, therefore, there is not merit in the claim of the assessee that it was indulging in charitable activities by way of funding medical projects in Government hospitals as it was nothing but a commercial transaction by the assessee society.
Thus we hold, agreeing with the Revenue, that the assessee society was not indulging in carrying out any charitable activities worth its name during the year but on the contrary was only earning income by non charitable activities, earning from investments made by it in FDR’s or other medical institutes. The assessee, we hold, has therefore been rightly held to be not entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is, therefore, upheld. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1097
When can an investigation be stated to commence under PMLA? - Who and at what stage can be termed as an accused? - Whether ECIR can be treated as an FIR for the applicability of CrPC provisions and for testing the invasion of any of the constitutional rights available to persons accused of a crime?
HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter in relation to the issue which is raised in the present petition, list these petitions on 11th February, 2022.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1096
Non remittance of TDS deducted by the employer from its employees to the Income Tax Department within the time prescribed - HELD THAT:- This Court following the dictum rendered in Madhumillan Syntex Ltd., Vs. Union of India[2007 (3) TMI 670 - SUPREME COURT] dismissed the petitions with liberty to the petitioners to seek for dispensation of their personal appearance on except the essential hearing dates.
This Court is of the view that the same order to be passed in the present case as well. This Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the trial Court to dispense with their personal appearance as and when required. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1095
Sale of the MV. VM Hopper Barge - violative of the moratorium imposed under section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or not - Preferential, Undervalued & Fraudulent Transaction or not - reversal of the sale of the MV. VM Hopper Barge - seeking restraint on Respondents, their officers, servants, agents, assignees, and successors in office from in any way alienating or creating any further third-party rights in respect of MV.VM Hopper Barge.
HELD THAT:- It is borne out from record that the Vessel HV. VM Hopper Barge H-107 against which the Respondent No.2 is having primary charge has been disposed of by Respondent No. 2 under SARFAESI proceedings to the Respondent No.3 out of liquidation process and the Respondent No.3 has already taken physical possession by paying the entire sale consideration and also obtained sale certificate in their favour from Respondent No.2 - It is also an admitted fact that the present Applicant had filed Securitization Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai challenging the possession notice issued under the SARFAESI Act by Respondent No.2 and the matter is subjudice before the competent DRT and the DRT has refused to grant any stay to the applicant.
As rightly contended by the Respondent No.2, the Applicant has already approached the Competent DRT challenging the SARFAESI measure initiated by Respondent No.2 and the proceedings are pending. The issue as to whether the sale conducted by the Respondent No.2 in respect of Vessel is hit under Section 31 (d) of the SARFEASI Act or not can be decided by DRT. The Applicant cannot continue simultaneous proceedings both in NCLT and DRT Especially without any locus. Since the above application is not filed by the IRP or RP and since this Bench is inclined to dismiss the above application on the locus of the applicant, this Bench is not giving any findings on the other issues raised by the petitioner.
Application dismissed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1094
Disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D - Necessity of recording satisfaction - HELD THAT:- Since the facts and circumstances on this issue for the year under consideration are similar to those of earlier years [2019 (12) TMI 627 - ITAT PUNE], respectfully following the precedent and specifically noting that the AO did record satisfaction in the assessment order, as further elaborated by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order, we hold that due satisfaction was recorded. Insofar as the calculation of disallowance at 0.5% under Rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, it is seen that the assessee itself computed such amount during the course of assessment proceedings and placed the same before the AO. To sum up, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Nature of receipt - capital or revenue receipt - taxability of receipt by the assessee under Package Scheme of Incentives (PSI) 2001 as revenue receipt chargeable to tax - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Bombay High court in Pr. CIT Vs. M/s. Welspun Steel Ltd. [2019 (3) TMI 397 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has taken similar view in deciding question no. (b) raised before it and held that the Tribunal was justified in holding that subsidy cannot be considered as a payment directly or indirectly to meet any portion of the actual cost. The assessee in that case also got subsidy for industrial development. Similar view has also been taken in M/s. Alkoplus Producers Pvt. Ltd. and Another [2019 (4) TMI 558 - ITAT PUNE] - It is overt that subsidy, in the prevailing circumstances, does not qualify for reduction from the cost of assets in pursuance of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. We, therefore, overturn the alternative view also as canvassed in the impugned order on this score. This ground is allowed.
Allowability of Aircraft expenses - CIT(A) upheld the disallowance at 25% of the gross amount of expenses - HELD THAT:- While sustaining the disallowance, the ld. CIT(A) took gross figures of aircraft expenses. The assessee has placed on record a calculation showing that out of total expenses of Rs.560.06 lakh the assessee recovered a sum of Rs.344.80 lakh from outside parties etc., leading the net amount of expenses at Rs.215.26 lakh. The disallowance is, therefore, directed to be restricted to 15% of the net expenses after verification of the calculation shown by the assessee - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
Disallowance of Provision made for warranty - CIT(A) allowed part relief by restricting the disallowance - HELD THAT:- similar issue arose for consideration before the Tribunal in the earlier years. A copy of the Tribunal order for the assessment year 2011-12 2019 (12) TMI 627 - ITAT PUNE] has been placed on record, which shows that the assessee’s claim has been accepted in entirety for the amount of provision created by it. Respectfully following the precedent, we allow the assessee’s ground and dismiss that of the Revenue.
Disallowance of weighted deduction claimed u/s.35(2AB) - assessee claimed the weighted deduction - Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR), New Delhi approving authority, reduced the amount of eligible deduction - HELD THAT:- Amount of weighted deduction should be allowed in entirety irrespective of the fact that it was not approved by the DSIR, subject to verification of the claim by the AO in terms of the afore referred judgment of SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. [2017 (8) TMI 933 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT].
Depreciation at 60% on Printers, UPS and other allied items - HELD THAT:- It is seen that similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal for the assessment year 2011-12 [2019 (12) TMI 627 - ITAT PUNE]. Relevant discussion has been made at page 54 of the paper book in which the opinion of the ld. CIT(A), in increasing the rate of depreciation, has been upheld. Respectfully following the same, we dismiss this ground.
Addition u/s.40A(2) on account of commission paid to Directors - AO treated the payment to Directors as excessive to this extent as per the mandate of section 40A(2), which was deleted in the first appeal - HELD THAT:- As seen that similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2011-12. Respectfully following the precedent, we uphold the impugned order on this score.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1093
Faceless assessment - validity of Order u/s 144 r.w.s. 254 and 144B - allegation of violation of principles of natural justice by way of not affording effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and not allowing him to file relevant documents in spite of repeated requests - HELD THAT:- Inability on the part of the petitioner to file relevant documents due to technical glitches in the portal system of the Income Tax Department over which he has got no control and to establish these facts of facing of technical glitches petitioner has annexed series of documents annexed to the writ petition from time to time and correspondences made to the department bringing it to the notice of the department of its grievance.
Respondent is not in a position to contradict these allegations which are matters of records and part of the writ petition as annexures.
Considering the submissions of the parties no purpose will be served by keeping the writ petition pending and interest of justice will be served if the impugned assessment order dated 26th September, 2021 is set aside with the direction upon the respondent assessing officer to pass a fresh assessment order after affording effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by observing principles of natural justice preferably within two months from date.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1092
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - petitioner has been deprived of proper hearing by the respondent - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned order reveals that the District Magistrate has also made it a ground that the petitioner has not filed the orders of acquittal passed in his favour and has relied upon the cases enumerated by the S.P. in his recommendation and has come to a conclusion that since so many cases have been registered against the petitioner, which shows his involvement in the criminal cases even now. This Court also finds that before passing the impugned order, the District Magistrate has not recorded the statement of any person from the area, who could say that he is afraid to go to police station only on account of the terror or influence exercised by the petitioner.
It is apparent that by not providing the petitioner sufficient time to produce the orders of acquittal in the cases in which he was already acquitted, the principles of natural justice have been clearly violated and in such peculiar circumstances, even if the petitioner has not availed the remedy of appeal, this Court is of the considered opinion that this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. In the considered opinion of this court, had an opportunity to produce the copies of acquittal orders passed in favour of the petitioner been given to him by the District Magistrate, the result of the outcome could have been different.
Whether order of externment cannot be passed in respect of other adjoining district? - HELD THAT:- This court is not required to dwell upon the same as the impugned order is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
Petition allowed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1091
Seeking grant of Regular Bail - grant of bail opposed to the petitioner on the ground that he and his co-accused have forged judgments and decrees of a Court and that too for at least 187 persons - HELD THAT:- In a magisterial trial, the petitioner is in custody since 07.04.2021; investigation qua the petitioner is complete and therefore, neither is the petitioner needed for the same nor can he influence it; the main allegation with regard to forging of judgments and decrees is against co-accused Jaidev Singla and Nitesh (since dead); there is no other criminal case pending against the petitioner; no further recovery is also required to be made from him; co-accused Govind, who had approached this Court through CRM-M-31235-2021 – Govind vs. State of Haryana [2021 (9) TMI 1421 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] has been granted regular bail by this Court and that the petitioner's trial in which 13 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution is yet to begin and therefore it is likely to take a long time to conclude.
The present case is considered to be a fit one in which the petitioner be directed to be released on regular bail - Application allowed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1090
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - Functional dissimilarity - HELD THAT:- LARSEN & TOUBRO INFOTECH LTD. (L&T) - In view of the facts inter alia that L&T is into various segments having no segmental financials, having huge brand value and intangibles is not a suitable comparable vis-à-vis taxpayer which was working as a captive entity and that contention raised by the DR that under TNMM minor dissimilarities do not affect the overall comparability is not sustainable because though it is a taxpayer’s own comparable but there being no estoppel against statute and that taxpayer can rectify its mistake at any stage of the proceedings.
Secondly, it is not a case of minor dissimilarities rather it is a case of functional dissimilarity and non-availability of segmental financials to provide the clear picture qua profit earned by the company from provisions of SDS. L&T is a big brand having ownership of huge intangibles which ought to provide competitive advantage to the taxpayer in the form of premium pricing and huge volume of business ultimately leading to the higher profitability. So, we are of the considered view that L&T is not a suitable comparable vis-à-vis the taxpayer, hence ordered to be excluded.
Tata Elexi - We are of the considered view that on account of functional dissimilarity and having ownership of internally generated intangibles in the form of technical know-how for rendering services to its customers make Tata Elexi not a suitable comparable vis-à-vis the taxpayer who is a routine software development service provider working on cost plus markup model having no intangibles of its own, hence we direct to exclude Tata Elexi from the final set of comparables.
Cybercom Datamatics leads to the conclusion that it is into diversified services and is also a product company providing software development to its associated enterprises and also selling developed software product whereas the taxpayer is a routine software development services provider working on a cost plus mark-up model and as such its margin cannot be compared with Cybercom Datamatics, hence Cybercom Datamatics is ordered to be deleted as a comparable.
Cigniti has been excluded in a number of cases by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal vis-à-vis the routine software development service provider on account of functional dissimilarity as it provides specialized services in the field of software testing, hence we find Cigniti not a suitable comparable vis-à-vis the taxpayer. Accordingly, it is ordered to be excluded.
Kelton is not a suitable comparable vis-à-vis the taxpayer being into diversified nature of services having no financial segmental to arrive at the proper margin, also being into development of various products and mobile apps and having own intangibles and softwares giving it edge over other players in the field as against the taxpayer who is a routine software development services provider working on cost plus mark-up, hence ordered to be excluded.
Thirdware is functionally dissimilar vis-à-vis the taxpayer as it has been deriving income from sale of licence and software services export from SEZ unit and revenue from subscription and training etc. and it is also into sale of licence and its segmental financials are not available.
Infobeansis providing wide range of services under four verticals i.e. services, automation, enterprise and industries and under the automation services verticals, the company is providing advanced robotic process automation services. Since Infobeans is into diversified activities it cannot be a suitable comparable vis-à-vis the taxpayer which is a routine software development services provider.
Inteq is not a suitable comparable vis-à-vis the taxpayer which is a routine software development service provider working on cost-plus mark up model, hence ordered to be excluded from the final set of comparables.
Adjustment on account of outstanding receivables - Delay in receipt of the receivables qua transactions undertaken with unrelated parties - TPO recharacterized the delay in receipt of receivables as unsecured loans advanced to the AE and attributed a notional interest @ 4.485% being Libor + 400 BPS on the period of delay exceeding 30 days - HELD THAT:- Since the taxpayer has not incurred any interest cost nor has availed of any loan from AE or unrelated third parties, as is evident from audited financials at pages57 & 66 of the paper book, proposed adjustment on account of delay in receipt of receivables by the TPO/DRP is not sustainable, hence ordered to be deleted. Consequently, grounds determined in favour of the taxpayer.
Non granting credit of Tax Deducted at source (TDS) in respect of amalgamating companies - HELD THAT:- When TDS has been deducted AO has no option but to grant the credit thereof to the taxpayer. So, we direct the AO to give credit of TDS deducted in respect of amalgamating companies, namely, IP Unity Communications Ltd. and GL Software Ltd. after due verification. Consequently, ground determined in favour of the taxpayer in accordance with law.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1089
Violation of the principles of natural justice - allegation of non-consideration of another judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal - reliance placed on circular being no. 45/2001-customs dated August 7, 2001 which has already been withdrawn from financial year 2002-03 - HELD THAT:- Keeping this writ petition pending will be futile exercise and interest of Justice will be served if the impugned order of the Tribunal dated February 25, 2020 is set aside only on this limited issue of the aforesaid circular dated August 7, 2001 which has been withdrawn.
The impugned order dated 25th February, 2020, is set aside with the direction upon the learned Tribunal to consider afresh on the issue of application of the aforesaid circular dated August 7, 2001 in the case of the petitioner and learned Tribunal shall also consider the judgments upon which the petitioner wants to rely in the matter at the time of hearing on remand - Petition disposed off.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1088
Depreciation claimed on the asset " Right to Collect Toll" - commercial right or intangible asset - true nature of the rights acquired in terms of the contract awarded by the NHAI - Whether the asset on which depreciation has been claimed, does not form part of intangible asset defined u/s 32(1)(ii) - whether or not the cost of “Right to Collect Toll” qualifies as intangible asset as defined under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 32? - HELD THAT:- There can be no doubt that as result of developing this project, the respondent-assessee had acquired a commercial right to collect the toll in terms of the contract awarded by NHAI. This right definitely falls within the meaning of “commercial right” or “intangible asset”. This definitely would qualify for depreciation @ 25%.
To the same effect is the decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of GVK Jaipur Expressway Ltd.[2017 (10) TMI 1380 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] the High Court has taken into consideration all the decisions and more particularly the decisions of (i) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Moradabad Toll Road Co. Ltd.[2014 (11) TMI 354 - DELHI HIGH COURT] (ii) Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd.[2012 (11) TMI 556 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]; (iii) Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. VGP Housing (P.) Ltd.[2014 (8) TMI 423 - MADRAS HIGH COURT]; (iv) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Jawahar Kala Kendra [2014 (6) TMI 292 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] (v) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali [2001 (2) TMI 26 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] (vi) decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. [2014 (11) TMI 351 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]; (vii) CIT vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. (No.1) [2016 (4) TMI 1184 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and (viii) CIT vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd [.2016 (4) TMI 1220 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] have no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the decision in the said two cases relates to the allowability of depreciation on roads treating as building. In the circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1087
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - amounts with respect to interest income, commitment fees and agency income - HELD THAT:- We deem it fit and proper to rectify the quantum of interest income, commitment fees and agency fees. Ordered, accordingly. The impugned order dated 4th December 2020 stands rectified accordingly.
Ground nos. 9 and 10 remained indisposed off - DR fairly agrees that the above grounds have remained to be disposed of, but, as for the arguments as merits his suggestion is that these submissions can only be taken up for hearing when recalled matter comes up for hearing when recalled matter comes up for hearing. Learned counsel for the assessee does not oppose the said suggestion.
Having regard to the rival submissions, and having perused the material on record, we are satisfied that ground nos. 9 and 10 have remained to be disposed of and the impugned order needs to be recalled accordingly. We order so. The Registry is directed to refix the matter for the limited purposes of disposing of these two grounds of appeal.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1086
Recovery of CENVAT Credit along with interest and proposing equivalent penalty - Cenvat credit availed on input services on the strength of documents issued by their head office namely Dabur India Ltd. (Corporate Office), Ghaziabad, were registered with the Department as distributor of credit - Revenue observed that these documents did not have the requisite information such as name, address and registration number of the service provider, serial number and date of invoice/bills/challans etc. as required under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - HELD THAT:- The verification has been done. Name and address, PAN based registration of the suppliers along with verification report dated 10-10-2011 have been provided by the appellant. In fact, the verification was required to be done with the registration number provided by the appellant in 2019 to find out whether these suppliers were having the registration number as mentioned in the invoices provided by the appellant or not? If the registration number provided earlier is matched with PAN based registration provided by the appellant at present, then, the appellant is entitled for Cenvat credit - Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to verify as directed by this Tribunal hereinabove and thereafter to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
The appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1085
Violation of the statutory stipulations contained in Section 15(A) of Essential Commodities Act, 1995 - petitioners contends that as per Section 15(A) of Essential Commodities Act, no court can take cognizance against a public servant for the offences punishable under the Act except with the previous sanction of the State Government - HELD THAT:- The contents of the order should reflect the materials considered by the authority for the purpose of deciding the necessity for granting sanction for prosecution of the public servant. Without highlighting any reason and without any indication as to the documents perused, no order of sanction should be passed. In this case, the order granting sanction was without any such observations and materials.
From both the documents produced by the learned Government Pleader, it is evident that it was decided not to proceed against the petitioners herein. As the prosecution against the petitioners herein are permissible only on the basis of sanction, the decision now taken by the respondents; not to proceed against them is having some relevance. In the light of the communications produced by the learned Government Pleader, it is evident that the Government is not intending to proceed against the petitioners herein. In such circumstances, further proceedings against the petitioners herein is an abuse of process of law. The chances of successful prosecution as against the petitioners herein are very bleak in the light of the above aspects. In such circumstances, it is only just and proper that the proceedings against the petitioners herein are to be quashed by invoking powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Application allowed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1084
Application seeking urgent hearing - service of notice - HELD THAT:- In case, the service of speed post on the respondent is not made, the applicant shall adopt the mode of substitute service and the notice of hearing be advertised in two daily newspapers (one English and one Hindi) having wide circulation in the area and file affidavit of service along with copy of postal receipt, tracking report, copy of email and paper clippings, if applicable within two weeks - Reply, if any, be filed within two weeks after receipt of notice with a copy in advance to the counsel opposite. Rejoinder thereto, if any, may be filed one week thereafter, with a copy in advance to the counsel opposite.
List on 13.12.2021.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1083
Lifting of provisional attachment - seeking permission to respondents/writ petitioners to operate the bank account and postal accounts by declaring the order of provisional attachment as having lost its efficacy as the confirmation order was not passed within a period of 180 days in terms of Section 5(3) of the Act - HELD THAT:- The writ petition is of year 2021 and the same has been allowed. We also find that no adequate opportunity was granted to the appellant to file affidavit-in-opposition. If the writ petition needs to be allowed at the admission stage and/or soon thereafter the court should record the finding that the affidavit-in-opposition is not required to be filed or if the contesting respondents give away its right to file affidavit-in-opposition.
The writ petition could not have been allowed with the finding and observations contained therein which may affect other litigants as well. That apart we find the learned writ Court after making such observations holding the appellant as a ‘non-litigant’ has granted a direction in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order with an observation that the order passed in the writ petition will not prevent the Adjudicating Authority from passing final order of adjudication in the pending proceeding in accordance with law which, according to the appellants, had already been concluded and final orders passed. The respondents/writ petitioners have not preferred an appeal against the said finding - the present appeal filed by the department against order passed in the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/respondents questioning the correctness and efficacy of the order of provisional attachment. As of now, the order of provisional attachment is no longer in existence because a final adjudication order has been passed on 9.11.2021. Thus, as on date the prayer sought for in the writ petition would have to be held to be infructuous. Be that as it may, the respondents/writ petitioners seek liberty to question the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority dated 9.11.2021 on all grounds, both factual and legal, including the contention that it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
A prima facie observation that an order of attachment would mean that status quo needs to be maintained and it could not mean that the person who has attached a property can appropriate the property before a final order was passed. This principle needs to be borne in mind and appropriate orders be passed by the appellant - appeal allowed.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1082
Seeking stay on removal of Dr. Kedarnath Panda, the Petitioner No. 1 from the Directorship of the Company - seeking stay on discontinuation of service and stay on restriction to enter hospital premises till disposal of the Company Petition - HELD THAT:- The matter has been taken on board today on being mentioned by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner stating certain urgency. Hearing was conducted through Video Conference but due to unexpected connectivity issues it could not be concluded.
Due to connectivity issues and disturbances in audio, matter could not be heard in totality. List this main CP and all other connected lAs for final hearing on 02.12.2021.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1081
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - assessee earned exempt dividend income and offer suo-moto disallowance while computing the income - CIT(A) deleted the additional disallowance by observing that AO was duty bound to record his dissatisfaction about the computation of disallowance made by the assessee - HELD THAT:- We find that besides the observation of Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order, the disallowance is not sustainable for two reasons. Firstly, the suo-moto disallowance as offered by the assessee was more than the exempt income. Secondly, as per settled legal position, only those investments were to be considered which had actually yielded any exempt income during the year. The suo-moto disallowance offered by the assessee was in accordance with law. Therefore, finding no reason to interfere in the impugned order on this issue, we dismiss the ground raised by the revenue.
Disallowance u/s 43B (Employer’s contribution to Gratuity Fund) - Disallowance u/s. 43B(b) as per the observation of Tax Auditor that there was non-payment of Employer’s contribution to approved Gratuity Fund - CIT(A) deleted the same by observing that the same was already disallowed by the assessee in the computation of income and further disallowance would amount to double addition - we direct Ld. AO to verify the observation and delete the disallowance. This ground stand allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1080
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Estimation of income on bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 32 - DELHI HIGH COURT] affirmed the order of the Tribunal in holding that estimated rate of profit applied on the turnover of the assessee does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Also see SHRI DEEPAK POPATLAL GALA & OTHERS [2015 (6) TMI 944 - ITAT MUMBAI]
In the case on hand the Ld. Assessing Officer and Ld.CIT(A) as well has only estimated the Gross Profit on the alleged non-genuine purchases without there being any conclusive proof of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. Thus, respectfully following the above decisions, we direct the assessing officer to delete the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Year under consideration. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2021 (11) TMI 1079
Maintainability of appeal - jurisdiction u/s 130-E of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- On going through the statement of case filed on behalf of the appellant, it is not found that the issues raised come within the four corners of Section 130-E of the Customs Act, 1962.
There are no reason to entertain the appeals in the jurisdiction under Section 130-E of the Customs Act, 1962 - appeal dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
