|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 2049 Records
-
2018 (3) TMI 1933
Benefit of exemption u/s 11 - Whether Assessee society is a charitable organization despite the fact that the assessee society was doing business within the meaning of amended provisions of section 2(15)? - HELD THAT:- A copy of such order has been placed on record. After considering all the relevant material, the Tribunal has upheld the order of the first appellate authority in grant the benefit of section 11 to this extent. It is further a matter of record that the order of the Tribunal has been approved by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court [2017 (10) TMI 1584 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - In view of the foregoing facts, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A) was right in granting the benefit of exemption u/s 11 to the extent impugned in the above three grounds.
Depreciation to assessee trust - AO did not allow the claim of depreciation on the premise that the purchase of assets was an application of income and hence the grant of depreciation would amount to double benefit - We find that sub-section (6) has been inserted to section 11 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015 providing that no depreciation can be allowed once the purchase of assets has been treated as application of income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision dated 13.12.2017 in CIT vs. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation, Poona [2017 (12) TMI 1067 - SUPREME COURT] has approved the granting of depreciation in the period prior to amendment of section 11(6) by holding such amendment to be prospective. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this score.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1932
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - functional dissimilarity - HELD THAT:- Companies functional un-comparable with software development services rendered by the assessee need to be deselected.
Market risk adjustment - As assessee has given the details of marketing risk undertaken by the assessee as well as by the comparable. However the DRP / TPO has not considered the same. In view of the above, we direct the TPO to examine the market risks / risk adjustment of the assessee as well as the comparable in view of the details submitted by the comparable.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1931
Recovery proceedings - attachment orders - petitioners herein purchased the properties that are the subject matter of these writ petitions from the said defaulter-assessee thereafter. Subsequent to the said purchases, orders of attachment were made - HELD THAT:- Vendor of the writ petitioners herein is a defaulter- assessee and that he alienated the subject properties only after receipt of notice under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act. Secondly, the orders of attachment were issued by the respondent only after such purchase by the writ petitioners herein.
Going by the plain language of the Section 281(1) of the Income Tax Act it is clear that the main provision is concerned only with those transactions executed by the assessee during the pendency of any proceedings under the Income Tax Act or after the completion thereof, but before the service of notice under Rule 2 of the second schedule. In this case, it is evident from the face of the record and it is again not in dispute that notice under Rule 2 of second schedule was served on the defaulter on 05.01.2013 and that the sale transactions executed by the said defaulter-assessee took place thereafter. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it would not be open to the purchasers to claim the benefit of the proviso to Section 281(1) of the Act.
More than anything else, as rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel for the respondent Department, any attachment of an immovable property made under the second schedule would relate back to and take effect from the date on which the notice to pay the arrears issued under II schedule was served on the defaulter. This legal effect of Rule 51 of second schedule cannot be overcome. In this case, this Court therefore comes to the conclusion that the attachment made subsequent to the purchase by the writ petitioner would relate back to and take effect from 05.01.2013 onwards.
As strongly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, if two interpretations are possible, the one that is beneficial to the assessee must be preferred. But in this case, this Court has absolutely no doubt that on a plain reading of the relevant provisions, only one interpretation is possible and that one is in favour of the Revenue.
Petitioners would submit that Rule 11(3)(a) of the second schedule cannot have an over-riding effect over the proviso to Section 281 of the Income Tax Act. But as held by the learned single Judge of this Court in 1998-2-L.W.288 (cited supra), the Section 281 and Rule 11 of the second schedule operate distinctly and independent of each other.
Yet the orders impugned in these writ petitions cannot sustained as such. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in GANGADHAR VISWANATH RANADE (DECD.) [1998 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] has held that it is the function of the civil court to declare a transactions to be null and void and that the Tax Recovery Officer cannot exercise the said function. Therefore, the respondent clearly erred in declaring the transactions to which the petitioners are parties as null and void. Therefore, the orders impugned in these writ petitions stand quashed to that extent. It would certainly be open to the petitioners herein to avail the remedy set out in Rule 11(6) of the second schedule of the Income Tax Act. If the respondent authority wants to have the transactions nullified, it is the respondent who must go to the civil court to seek declaration to that effect. If the writ petitioners want the attachment to be lifted, it is for them to move the civil Court and obtain relief as provided in Rule 11(6) of the second schedule of the Income Tax Act.
The orders impugned in these writ petitions are quashed to the extent indicated above. The stand of the respondent in declining to lift the attachment already made is sustained. The order of the respondent declaring the transactions in question as null and void is quashed.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1930
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - Existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The Operational Creditor issued Demand Notice dated 06.10.2017 in form No.3 demanding payment of outstanding amount within 10 days from the date of receipt of notice. However, the Corporate Debtor failed to pay the amount due. Further the Bankers of Operational Creditor viz. M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank & HDFC Bank, New Delhi vide their certificates dated 30.10.2017 and 06.11.2017 respectively have certified that they have not vencived the amount from the Corporate Debtor.
Despite several reminders, when the Corporate Debtor failed to make payments, the Operational Creditor filed this company petition, seeking to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor - The Company petition is filed under Section 9 of IBC.
Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1929
Stay Application seeking stay of outstanding demand - Ex-parte best judgment order passed - HELD THAT:- As noticed from the orders passed by the tax authorities that the assessee did not appear before both the tax authorities and hence they were constrained to pass the orders ex-parte, without hearing the assessee. The assessee now claims that it would be in a position to explain the sources, if an opportunity is given to it. Learned AR also submitted that the assessee was constrained to close down its business as it has incurred heavy losses in earlier years. To substantiate this submission, the assessee has also filed copies of ITRs in the paper book. Considering these peculiar facts, with the consent of both the parties, we took the appeal for hearing.
After hearing the case, we are of the view that, in the interest of natural justice, the assessee may be provided with an opportunity to present its case before the Assessing Officer. However, since the assessee has failed to appear before the tax authorities in the original proceedings, we are of the view that the assessee should be imposed a cost for being negligent.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1928
Rejection of expression of interest without assigning any reason - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- At the time of hearing it is brought to my notice a letter issued by the State Bank of India stating that no amount is due from the resolution applicant and in the above circumstances the resolution applicant is not at all a defaulter within the meaning of Section 29A of the amended Code.
The resolution applicant is hereby directed to submit all the required documents before the Resolution Professional in order to ascertain whether the resolution applicant comes under the purview of Section 29A and submit all the Resolution Plans as per Section 25(i) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. 2016 before the Committee of Creditors for its consideration. It is made clear that rejection or approval of a Resolution Plan is the right of the Committee Of Creditors and Resolution Professional cannot reject any Plan without a decision of Committee of Creditors.
For further hearing, if any, list it on 15/03/2018.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1927
Disqualification as directors under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 - non filing of financial statements and annual returns by the respective companies of which they are directors for the consecutive period of three years - Notification dated 7th September 2017 - HELD THAT:- The undertaking given by the learned Counsel for the petitioners as was given in the disposed of petitions (paragraphs 8 and 9) would operate in these petitions also. By adopting the reasoning of the Court in the said order, these petitions are disposed off on identical lines - The petitioners to take immediate steps in consonance with the provisions under Section 248(2) of the said Act, 2013 and under the CODS2018, in any case within a period of ten days from today.
In order to facilitate this exercise, the operation of the impugned list, in so far as it concerns the petitioners, will remain stayed till 31/3/2018 or till such time the respondents take requisite decision with regard to the request of the petitioners made to them in consonance with the provisions under Section 248(2) of the said Act, 2013 and under the CODS 2018.
Petition disposed off.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1926
Stay of demand - attachment orders - HELD THAT:- Service is waived, Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, learned counsel having accepted notice on behalf of the respondents. Let a complete set of paper book be supplied to him during the course of the day. Adjourned to 04.04.2018.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that at least 15 per cent of the demand inclusive of penalty and interest stands deposited with the tax authorities, albeit on account of the auction of two of the petitioner’s properties. It is necessary to consider the effect of the circulars dated 29.02.2016 and 31.07.2017. The petitioner’s bank accounts and properties already stand attached. In these circumstances, till further orders, the impugned proceedings in so far as they relate to the arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1925
Benefit of exemption u/s 11 and 12 - activities of the assessee is to promote, coordinate and national quality initiative for building confidence and services in charging inspection and accreditation fees from various organizations - assessee’s activities falls under last limb of section 2 (15) and hit by the proviso to section 2 (15) - HELD THAT:- The identical issue has been decided by the coordinate bench in case of the assessee for assessment year 2009 – 10 which has been upheld by Hon’ble Delhi High Court [2015 (1) TMI 928 - DELHI HIGH COURT] in favour of the assessee where the order of the coordinate bench has been upheld - we confirm the finding of the CIT (A) holding that assessee is eligible for that exemption u/s 11 and 12 of The Income Tax Act. - Decided against revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1924
Unexplained share capital u/s. 68 - Addition based on document found in search - HELD THAT:- The first document that is found during the course of search is memorandum of Articles of the investor companies. It is a matter of common knowledge and it is also requirement of the Companies Act that when a company invests in share capital of another company, the investor company should have the clause of authorizing that company to invest in assessee company. It is mandatory that a share application made by the Corporate must be accompanied with the memorandum of articles of the investor company, properly authorized resolution of the investor company as well as other requisite information about the investor company. Such details are needed to be verified by the investee company before making allotment of shares to another company. In view of this, no infirmity can be found in finding such documents with the assessee.
Second documents were the bank statements of investor companies. Such bank statements show the bank transactions carried out by the investor companies with the assessee company and for the purpose of justifying the amount of sum received from any party, the responsibility falls on the assessee - bank statements are found from the assessee. Even otherwise, the assessee itself has submitted these bank statements before the AO who would have any doubt about the veracity of the bank statements, he should have issued commission to the Bankers and summons to the directors of these investor companies which have not been done. The bank accounts of the companies, therefore, do not lead to any inference that the investment made by these companies is accommodation entry in the hands of the assessee.
The next documents are affidavits of the directors of investor companies, stating that their company has applied for equity shares. This itself is a statement that the investment has been made by those companies. These affidavits were not found either bogus, sworn by different persons other than the directors of the companies nor disclosed anything else other than that declared in the accounts of the companies and these affidavits are, in fact, supporting the transactions.
Had there been any transaction recorded on blank share transfer forms, receipts regarding any money or transfer in favour of any person, it would have made them suspicious. The entries in those forms are not at all made, but are merely blank. The assessee has given detailed explanation why they were found at the place of assessee. AO has not examined the signatories of these documents to arrive at the true nature of the transactions.
AO is just making an assumption that these are the documents which would have been used by the assessee for transferring those shares in the name of the promoters or their group concerns at a price which is far less than the price of shares issued. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that either such shares are subsequently transferred at lower price, or such shares stood disposed of by the investor companies. In view of this, the case of the Revenue is merely based on assumption and surmises.
If the assessee has explained the nature and source of such income or such credit before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer does not carry out adequate verification, or even after verification, nothing incriminating feature turns out, then it does not throw the onus back on the assessee. In the present case, it was the bounden duty of the Assessing Officer to have enquired from the directors of the investing companies as well as from the bankers of those companies by issue of summons u/s. 131 of the IT Act. Those directors should have been examined to explain about their nature of income and source of such income. They should have been further enquired about the purpose of making investment and fate of their investment as on today. But to utter dismay, the ld. Assessing Officer has slept over the information submitted by the assessee and merely raised assumptions and presumptions.
Addition made by AO has become unsustainable in the hands of the assessee due to lack of enquiry or any efforts on the part of the AO. In this regard, we are also constrained to refer the amendment made to the provisions of section 68 of the IT Act by Finance Act, 2012 by inserting a proviso w.e.f. 01.04.2013 that additional burden has been cast on the assessee to prove in the similar circumstances, if no explanation is offered by the investor or such explanation offered by the investor is not satisfactory. We are of the considered opinion that the addition made u/s. 68 in the hands of the assessee cannot be sustained.
Addition on account of excess money paid towards purchase of agricultural land - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the assessee surrendered a sum of ₹ 7,50,00,000/- on account of peak investment of diaries seized during the course of search, which stood accepted by the Revenue authorities as business income of assessee. It is also an admitted fact that the actual peak amount worked out to ₹ 7,20,41,208/-. Therefore, the surplus amount of ₹ 29,58,792/-, admittedly, being the business income of the assessee, in our considered opinion, should be deemed to be the source of excess amount paid for purchase of agricultural land and shall take care of it. Hence, there was no need to make separate addition on this account. Accordingly, the addition deserves to be deleted. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is found full of merits and deserves to be allowed.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1923
Assessment u/s 153A - Pending v/s completed assessments - HELD THAT:- There was no pending assessment at the time of issuance of notice under section 153A of the Act. Completed assessment could not be interfered with by the Assessing Officer while making the assessment under Section 153A without any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search.
This is clearly laid down in Kabul Chawla’s [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] case. Similarly, assessment cannot be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. The assessment has to be made under this section only on the basis of seized material. The cash found during the search was properly explained in the hands of the Company to which cash belonged and there was no other incriminating document found during search related to the bank entries. We are of the considered view that on these findings relief was given to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A) and we do not find any infirmity in his order and the relief granted to the assessee is, therefore, sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1922
Addition on account of expenses of personal use - AO disallowed which is 10% of expenses on vehicle maintenance, sales promotion, staff welfare, travelling and conveyance and telephone - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) held that the element of personal use cannot be completely rules out, therefore, he sustain the disallowance to the tune of ₹ 81,166/-. It can be seen that the Assessing Officer made disallowance only on the estimated basis. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Unverified expenses - Addition on account of Diwali expenses - onus was on assessee to establish that it was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has correctly held that the books of accounts of the assessee are audited and the assessee is maintaining the computerized accounts books in the shape of Cash Book, Ledger, Stock Register, Salary Register, Sale Purchase Voucher, bank statement etc. regularly. Therefore, any disallowance on estimated basis is not tenable. There is no need to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A).
Addition on account of incorrect claim of depreciation on commercial vehicle - whether these vehicles were acquired between 01.10.1998 and 31.03.1999 and put to use before 01.04.1999 as per the provision of third provision to section 31(1) - HELD THAT:- The perusal of the records show that the assessee furnished all the relevant documents before the Assessing Officer. There is no additional evidence given by the assessee before the CIT(A). CIT(A) rightly held that the Assessing Officer wrongly disallowed a sum of ₹ 1,71,929/- depreciation on commercial vehicle. As per 3rd proviso to clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 32 of the Act, the assessee has rightly claimed the depreciation @40%. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A).
Addition on account of incorrect claim of cost of acquisition of shares while computing Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares - HELD THAT:- The persual of the records show that the assessee furnished all the relevant documents before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there is no additional evidence given by the assessee before the CIT(A). CIT(A) rightly held that cost of acquisition which was disclosed in the Financial Year 2003-04 as purchase and the same was allowed by the CIT(A). There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Ground No. 6 & 7 are dismissed.
Long Term Capital Gain addition - HELD THAT:- From the records it can be seen that shareholding pattern was not verified by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A). In fact, the assessee has converted his business from proprietorship to Pvt. Ltd. company w.e.f. 01.01.2009 with allotment of 99.66% share in his name. Neither the Assessing Officer not the CIT(A) has not taken into account the effect of the revaluation after the proprietary concern is converted into Private Limited Company as regards to the shares allotted to the assessee as a Director of the said Private Limited Company. Therefore, this needs to be looked into by the Assessing Officer. The matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1921
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Accentia Technologies Ltd.- A copy of the order of Ld.DRP has been placed on record. The Ld. DR could not controvert the said factual matrix. Upon perusal of assessee’s TP study, as placed on record, we find that the assessee was engaged in providing application support, analytical support, R&D support to its AE. Assessee was responsible for identification of resources, recruitment of manpower, training, project management and execution. These services were characterized as routine support services with less than normal business risk. These services, in our considered opinion, could not be equated with the functions performed by Accentia. This is further evidenced by the fact that in immediately AY 2011-12, Ld. DRP excluded this entity on functional dissimilarity. Keeping in view the fact that nothing on record suggest that there was any change in functional profile of the assessee or the said entity, we direct for exclusion of this entity. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the revenue contested the aforesaid stand of Ld. DRP, in any manner.
Eclerx Services Ltd.- As observed that during the year, this entity had acquired Agilyst Inc., a US company providing operations and a tantalizing support to some of the largest cable and telecommunications companies in the world. Respectfully following the same, holding that scale of operation was a significant criterion for the purpose of benchmarking analysis and finding that this entity was functionally dissimilar, we direct for exclusion of this comparable.
Infosys BPO Ltd.- As relying on PENTAIR WATER INDIA (P) LTD. [2014 (5) TMI 1068 - ITAT PANAJI] exclusion of this entity on account of functional dissimilarity and extra-ordinary events which took place during the year.
TCS E-serve Ltd.entity has been directed to be excluded since it was engaged in providing high end KPO services. Secondly, applying the scale of operation criteria as approved by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Pentair Water India (P.) Ltd. [2014 (5) TMI 1068 - ITAT PANAJI] we direct for exclusion of this entity.
Cross Domain Solutions Pvt. Ltd.- DRP has relied upon the decision of Hyderabad Tribunal rendered in M/s Excellence Data Research Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (9) TMI 126 - ITAT HYDERABAD] wherein the nature of the services was found to be similar to ITeS filed. The cited decision of Bangalore Tribunal pertains to AY 2008-09 and therefore, would not throw much light on the nature of services being rendered by this entity. Therefore, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to Ld. AO / Ld. TPO to appreciate the functional profile of this entity and re-adjudicate the same as urged by Ld. AR with a direction to the assessee to substantiate the same.
Oxygen Bio Research - We direct Ld. TPO / Ld. AO to consider Profit Before Depreciation for the purpose of benchmarking analysis.
Syngene International Ltd - AR submitted that this company was found functionally non-comparable and wrongly included in the final list of comparable. It has been submitted that RPT of this entity is greater than 25% and therefore, the same would not be a good comparable - Upon perusal, we find that the assessee’s submissions would require verification and therefore, we deem it fit to restore the matter of this comparable to the file of Ld. TPO / Ld. AO for re-adjudication in the light of submissions made by Ld. AR. The assessee, in turn, is directed to substantiate the same.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1920
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - back office support services segment - HELD THAT:- Exclude Infosys BPO Ltd and TCS E-serve Ltd as comparable companies from the comparability analysis of back office support services segment.
Include R System International Ltd as comparable company as the above company is found functionally comparable. Further, with respect to the mismatch of the FY the assessee is directed to provide audited, publicly available financial information with respect to quarterly results of the company to reconstruct the comparative financial year’s financial data to the ld Transfer Pricing Officer.
CG Vak Software Ltd CG Vak Software Ltd company is included after detailed discussion holding that no functional dissimilarity is pointed out and further as the fact shows that assessee is not a persistent loss maker, we direct the ld AO/ TPO to include the above company.
Advisory support segment - Inclusion of ICRA Management and Consulting Services Ltd as well as Cyber Media Research Ltd. - Noreason that this companies should not be included for the comparability analysis with respect to the advisory service segment of the assessee. Hence, we direct the ld TPO for their inclusion accordingly.
Inclusion of Ladder Up Corporate Advisory Pvt. Ltd which has the PLI of 30.72% - It is admitted fact that the comparable selected by the ld Transfer Pricing Officer is engaged in twin activities Investment banking and merchant banking services along with investment advisory services. Further, no segmental information with respect to the advisory services is made available. Further, the ld TPO himself has excluded the investment banking activity from the comparability analysis we do not find any reason to keep this comparable incomparability analysis in absence of segmental information available. Hence, the TPO is directed to exclude this company
Exclusion of Inmacs Management Services Ltd, a comparable selected by the ld Transfer Pricing Officer having 42.66% of the PLI - The comparable company undisputedly is providing advisory services coupled with investment banking services and dispute resolution services. The ld TPO has accepted that investment banking segment is not comparable with the advisory segment. Therefore, in absence of segmental information TPO is directed to exclude this comparable accordingly.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1919
Disallowance towards provision for loss on contract - HELD THAT:- Since, this issue is pending before the AO for the A.Y. 2009-10, therefore, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and remand this issue before the AO to decide the matter of controversy afresh in view of the direction raised by the Hon’ble ITAT [2016 (7) TMI 270 - ITAT MUMBAI] for the A.Y. 2009-10 - Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue.
Provision for doubtful debts while computing book profits u/s 115JB - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the claim of the assessee is liable to be allowed in the interest of justice. No distinguishable material has been produced before us. The claim of the assessee has been decided by following the law settled in M/S. VIJAYA BANK VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. [2010 (4) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT] and YOKOGAWA INDIA LTD. [2011 (8) TMI 766 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. Taking into account, all the facts and circumstances of the case, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1918
Registration of sale certificate - priority of secured creditors over all other dues - cancellation on the ground that the Commercial Tax Department has created an encumbrance on the property - HELD THAT:- The decision of the Full Bench in the case of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (CT) V. Indian Overseas Bank [2016 (12) TMI 373 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] squarely answers the legal issue, wherein, it has been held that the secured creditor is entitled to realise secured debts due and payable by sale of assets over which security interest is created and would have priority over all debts and Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central Government, State Government or Local Authority. Therefore, the impugned order has to be held to be unsustainable in law.
The first respondent is directed to register the sale certificate after deleting the encumbrance created at the instance of the Commercial Tax Department and the sale certificate shall be registered in favour of the third respondent, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1917
Fee for technical services - services provided by the assessee to Sandvik Asia Ltd. and Walter Tools India Pvt. Ltd. - Article 12 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Portuguese Republic - HELD THAT:- We find that the additions on this count were made by Assessing Officer in earlier assessment years as well. The matter travelled to the Tribunal for the first time in assessment year 2007-08. The Tribunal after analyzing the facts of case, DTAA between India and Portuguese Republic, Protocol to the Tax Treaty between India and Sweden and various case laws held that the payments received by assessee on account of management services fee from Sandvik Asia Ltd. and technical services fee from Walter Tools India Pvt. Ltd. cannot be brought to tax in view of principle of the most favoured nation (MFN) clause in the tax treaty. It is an undisputed fact that the nature of payments received by assessee in assessment year under appeal is identical to the one received in earlier assessment years.
We find that no merit in the appeal by the Department. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1916
Levy of tax - EMU Oil - Government order in G.O.Ms.No.122 Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department, dated 30 September 2009 - HELD THAT:- The issue as to whether EMU Oil is a taxable commodity requires to be decided by the authority under the TNVAT Act. Even in the detention order, there is no clear indication as to how the check post authority has arrived at a conclusion that the EMU Oil is taxable under the TNVAT Act. We are therefore of the view that liberty should be given to the appellant to file revision petition before the jurisdictional Joint Commissioner.
Liberty is granted to the appellant to file a revision before the Joint Commissioner challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Pennaiyar Bridge Check Post, which is impugned in the writ petition - appeal disposed off.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1915
Illegally printed lottery tickets recovered during investigation - possession of huge cash explained or not - Sections 294(A), 420 and 120(b) Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT:- The assessment made by the High Court at a stage when the investigation was yet to be completed, is completely incorrect and uncalled for. Presence of two crucial facts was enough to let the investigation go on, namely, recovery of huge amount of cash of ₹ 7.2 crores from the house of one of the Accused and that such recovery was accepted by the Accused. The explanation given by them about the alleged transaction of agreement of sale and receipt of cash in pursuance thereof does not prima facie appear to be correct. The agreement is stated to have been entered on 02.03.2012 while the stamp paper in question was issued by the relevant department on 09.03.2012 to the vendor which was later sold to lady named Vimla on 13.3.2012. Whether the possession of huge cash amounting to ₹ 7.2 crores can be explained by the Accused and whether such explanation be accepted or not, are all matters which will be gone into at the relevant stage in the proceedings. The investigation in any case ought not to have been set at naught but it ought to have been permitted to be taken to its logical conclusion.
While the investigation was still incomplete, the High Court ought not to have interfered in the present case - the view taken by the High Court is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1914
Attachment of Bank Accounts of petitioner - period for issuance of notice under sub-section(1) of section 74 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- Notice returnable on 12.4.2018.
By way of ad interim relief, the above attachment is suspended of both the bank accounts on the condition that :
1) The balance as on today in both the bank accounts shall be maintained.
2) The petitioners shall maintain a minimum stock balance of ₹ 50 lacs
............
|
9911796707
