|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 2345 Records
-
2018 (7) TMI 2227 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
TPA - selection of comparable - substantial question of law or fact - Maintainability of appeal in High court - HELD THAT:- This Court in a recent judgment in M/s. Softbrands India Pvt. Ltd [2018 (6) TMI 1327 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held that in these type of cases, unless an ex-facie perversity in the findings of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is established by the appellants, the appeal at the instance of an assessee or the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Act is not maintainable. No substantial question of law arises in the present case also
-
2018 (7) TMI 2226 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - cheques when presented at the bank were returned unpaid and inspite of notice of demand, the petitioner did not pay the amount - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - HELD THAT:- The question of territorial jurisdiction is rendered academic for the simple reason the averments in the complaints themselves endorse the objection of the petitioner that no charge for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be brought against him with regard to the mentioned three cheques since they were issued as security cheques.
In view of admitted position of the complainant, the summoning order against the petitioner on their basis is found to be incorrect and wrong exercise of jurisdiction - application allowed.
-
2018 (7) TMI 2225 - SC ORDER
Services provided by Indian tour operators to foreign tourists - place of provision of services - Vires of Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 - validity of Section 94 2 (f) of the FA - the present petition is concerned with the question of payment of service tax by the Indian tour operators in respect of the services provided by them to foreign tourists during the period between 1st July 2012 and 1st July 2017 - HELD THAT:- Leave granted.
-
2018 (7) TMI 2224 - ITAT CHENNAI
Nature of expenditure - expenditure incurred on the lease premises - revenue expenditure or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- CIT(Appeals) by placing reliance on the order of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case and judgment of Kerala High Court in Joyallukas India Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (6) TMI 80 - KERALA HIGH COURT] and in CIT v. HI Line Pens Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (9) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT DELHI] found that the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards renovation of rental premises is not acquisition of capital asset but for the purpose of business of the assessee, therefore, it has to be allowed as revenue expenditure. Since the CIT(Appeals) has followed the order of this Tribunal, judgments of Kerala High Court and Delhi High Court and decided the issue accordingly, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (7) TMI 2223 - SUPREME COURT
Oppression and mismanagement - Appellants had made various allegations against the Statutory Auditors alleging acts of omission and commission in collusion with the Board of Directors - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order - the appeal is dismissed leaving the question of law open without prejudice to the proceedings pending before the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.
Application disposed off.
-
2018 (7) TMI 2222 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Levy of equal amount of penalty - manufacture of Motor spirit "Speed" obtained by mixing motor spirit with Multi-function Additives - HELD THAT:- The issue is covered by the Tribunal's order in the case of BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, PATNA [2012 (5) TMI 248 - CESTAT, KOLKATA] and also in the case of HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX, DELHI & ROHTAK [2008 (9) TMI 154 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] where it was held that blending of MS with MFA does not result into the manufacture of a new product, even if the emerged product is branded as 'speed' and marketed accordingly after some value addition.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (7) TMI 2221 - SC ORDER
Declaration to the second proviso to Section 5 (1) of PMLA as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- Issue notice.
In the meantime, the operation of the impugned order passed by the High Court shall remain stayed.
-
2018 (7) TMI 2220 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Failure of the MahaRERA Appellate Authority to take cognizance of the complaints tendered by the complainants in respect of the unregistered project - HELD THAT:- On completion of the process of up-gradation of the software equipped of receiving online complaints, in respect of unregistered projects by the MahaRERA within the time stipulated, it would be open for the Petitioner to register the complaint in observance of the procedure prescribed in that behalf. The complaint tendered online by the Petitioner and other similarly situated complainants, in respect of unregistered projects would be entertained and the same would be dealt with in accordance with the procedure that is being adopted by MahaRERA in respect of disposal of complaints in relation to registered projects. The statement is made by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 on instructions from Mr. Wani, Administrative officer of MahaRERA who is present before the Court.
Petition disposed off.
-
2018 (7) TMI 2219 - SUPREME COURT
Role of Chief Justice as the "Master of Roster" - Seeking this Court to clarify the administrative authority of the Chief Justice of India (Chief Justice) as the Master of Roster and for laying down the procedure and principles to be followed in preparing the Roster for allocation of cases - the submission is that once the Rules are framed, matters should be listed and fixed for hearing as per the provisions, particularly Order III Rules 7 and 8, thereof.
As per A.K. Sikri, J.
HELD THAT:- The Constitution makers reposed great trust in the judiciary by assigning it the powers of judicial review of not only the administrative acts of the Government/Executive but even the legislative acts of the Legislature. In the process, judiciary discharges one of the most important functions, namely, the administration of justice. It does so by upholding the Rule of law and, in the process, protecting the Constitution and the democracy. Our Constitution guarantees free speech, fair trials, personal freedom, personal privacy, equal treatment under the law, human dignity and liberal democratic values - the judiciary even without the sword or the purse, remains the guardian of the Constitution. Its sole strength lies in the public confidence and the trust.
The faith of the people is the bed-rock on which the edifice of judicial review and efficacy of the adjudication are founded. Erosion of credibility of the judiciary, in the public mind, for whatever reasons, is greatest threat to the independence of the judiciary - It has also become a regular feature that even laymen, who are constitutionally illiterate, enter such debate and evaluate the outcomes influenced by their emotions, rather than on legal or constitutional principles.
The role of the 'Chief Justice' as Master of Roster also assumes much significance. Each 'Chief Justice' performs his role by consultation and consensus, after taking into account various factors including individual Judges' interests and abilities, their specialisation in a particular area, their capacity to handle particular type of cases and many other relevant considerations. However, the exercise of such a power with wisdom has to be left to the 'Chief Justice' who is given the prerogative of the 'Master of the Roster'.
It is difficult to accept the prayer of the Petitioner that the expression 'Chief Justice' appearing in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 be read as 'Collegium' of five senior most Judges for the purpose of allocating the matters. At the same time, we feel that debate generated as a result has served its purpose.
As per Ashok Bhushan, J.
With regard to procedure and practice of Supreme Court, Article 145 empowers the Supreme Court to frame Rules with the approval of the President. The word practice and procedure of the Court are wide enough to include practice and procedure relating to preparation of roster and allocation of cases. The Rules framed by Supreme Court Under Article 145 specifically refers the Chief Justice in Chapter VI as noted above, the Chief Justice, who is to nominate the bench for hearing every case, appeal or matter. There is no indication in any of the constitutional provisions or Rules framed thereunder that for allocation of cases and formation of benches, Chief Justice should be read as collegium. For reading Chief Justice as collegium, Under Article 124, there was a constitutional basis.
The submission that Constitution does not specifically mention Chief Justice to exercise power of allocation of cases and constitution of Benches, hence, Chief Justice is not empowered to do the same, is not a valid submission. Under the constitutional scheme itself as contained in Article 145, the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court is to be regulated by the Rules made by the Supreme Court with approval of the President.
Rules framed Under Article 145 specifically empower the Chief Justice to nominate Benches for hearing cases or appeal. Non-containing of any specific provision in the Constitution empowering the Chief Justice to frame the roster to allocate the cases is inconsequential since the entire subject was to be covered by Rules made Under Article 145.
The law laid down by this Court is that; the power of framing roster which inheres in the Chief Justice has constitutional and statutory backing and by convention it is treated as prerogative of the Chief Justice. We, thus, cannot import the international practices in the constitutional and statutory scheme of this Court.
Petition disposed off.
-
2018 (7) TMI 2218 - ITAT JAIPUR
Computation of capital gain - Determination of value as per 50C - disallowing the FMV as on 01- 04-1081 and estimating the FMV - as argued there was no reference regarding the valuation of the property by the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur to any of the higher authorities - HELD THAT:- In this case, we find that the assessee has sold the part of the agricultural land for ₹ 10.00 lacs which was the value adopted by the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur. In assessee's case, there was no reference regarding the valuation of the property by the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur to any of the higher authorities. The addition is based on the Collector (Stamps) valuation in the case of three bothers of the assessee.
In assessee's case the sale consideration of ₹ 10 lacs was accepted by Sub-Registrar -IV, Jaipur. Thus there was no enhancement in assessee's case rather there is no reference to the Collector (Stamps) in assessee's case. It is a settled position of law that Section 50C is a deeming provision and such provisions cannot be invoked when there was no difference in sale consideration declared and value adopted by Registrar or where no reference for valuating full value of consideration of property to Collector (Stamps).
It is pertinent to mention that assessee had sold the land on prevailing DLC rate and Sub-Registrar-IV, Jaipur has adopted the same while registering the documents. Therefore, the addition made invoking the provisions of Section 50C of the Act is not as per law. In this view of the matter, the addition made is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (7) TMI 2217 - ITAT DELHI
CIT-A decided the appeal of the assessee ex-parte - Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - AO framed the assessment u/s 143(3) making the additions u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal of the assessee exparte even when an application for adjournment was furnished by the assessee. CIT(A) although rejected the application for adjournment but he had not given any cogent reason for the same. On the contrary, assessee submitted that the then Counsel for the assessee was suffering from health problems, therefore, could not appear on the date of hearing and that the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issues on merit. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim “audi alteram partem”. We, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to set aside this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes
-
2018 (7) TMI 2216 - ITAT BANGALORE
Applicability of MAT applicability u/s 115JB - company engaged in the generation and supply of electricity power - HELD THAT:- Identical issue had come up for consideration in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2010-11 [2017 (12) TMI 1631 - ITAT BANGALORE] and this Tribunal by its order upheld the order of CIT(Appeals) in coming to the conclusion that the provisions of section 115JB of the Act are not applicable to assessee company because it was a company engaged in generation and supply of electricity power.
As far as amendment to provisions of section 115JB(2) of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2013 is concerned, this issue has also been dealt with by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 by placing reliance on a similar decision rendered on the very same amendment to law in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT [2013 (10) TMI 1505 - ITAT BANGALORE] wherein the Tribunal took the view that amendment to law w.e.f. 01.04.2013 was only prospective. In view of the order of Tribunal on an identical issue in assessee’s own case, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal by the revenue and the same is dismissed.
Interest earned from fixed deposits has to be regarded as business income on which deduction u/s. u/s.80IA[4][iv] or the same should be treated as income from ‘other sources’ - HELD THAT:- This aspect was also considered by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in AY 2010-11 [2017 (12) TMI 1631 - ITAT BANGALORE] wherever the FDRs are purchased on account of business exigencies, the interest generated thereon would be business income and not income from other sources. But in the instant case, it is not borne out from the orders of lower authorities whether all FDRs are purchased for business exigencies or not. Therefore, we restore the matter to the file of the AO to examine the nature of FDRs and its purpose and to give a specific finding whether the FDRs were purchased for business purposes or not. If it is purchased for business purposes, the interest income earned thereon shall be treated as business income, not income from other sources.
-
2018 (7) TMI 2215 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Addition of income-tax paid by the assessee-company on behalf of an expatriate employee - HELD THAT:- Agreement between the Assessee and the Employee Mr.Prakash Bare, contemplates that the income tax liability on the salary to be paid to the employee Mr.Prakash Bare, shall be borne by the company and this contractual liability agreed upon by the assessee is liable for deduction u/s.37 of the Act. No prohibition in law is pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revenue to deduct the expenditure towards the contractual income tax liability paid by the assessee as an allowable expenditure u/s.37. See TATA YODOGAWA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2010 (9) TMI 715 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT].
TP Adjustment - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- This Court in a recent judgment in Softbrands India Pvt. Ltd [2018 (6) TMI 1327 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held that in these type of cases, unless an ex-facie perversity in the findings of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is established by the appellant, the appeal at the instance of an assessee or the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Act is not maintainable.
-
2018 (7) TMI 2214 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Scope of appeal under Section 248 - Ascertainment of tax withholding liability from foreign remittances made by the assessee - Appeal by person denying liability to deduct tax in certain cases - whether the assessee can be said have received any services which makes available any “technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes or consist of the development and transfer of a technical plan or technical design which enables the person acquiring the services to apply the technology contained therein” in the sense that there is a transfer of technology? - HELD THAT:- It is an ongoing contract that the assessee has entered into with the service provider, i.e. Israeli entity, and the thrust of the arrangement is essentially for supervisory and consultancy services. These services cannot, by any stretch of logic, be considered to have transferred the technology in the sense that the recipient of service can be said to have been enabled to perform these services, without recourse to the service provider, on its own.
An incidental benefit, by way of enrichment of experience, to the recipient of a consultancy service or supervision service does not amount to making available technical knowledge, skills or experience. The payment is not for incidental enrichment of experience of the assessee, even if that be so, but for receipt of services by way of review, supervision and consultancy. The consideration for the payments in question is the review, supervision and consultancy services and not for such an incidental enrichment, even if that be, of experience. These services donot make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes.
Departmental Representative has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that there was any transfer of the skills of service provider to the recipient of services. The arguments raised by the appellant are based on sweeping generalizations and are not supported by any specific evidences in support of the same.
Objection against admission of additional evidence, one has to bear in mind the fact that every evidence produced in an appeal against 248, when it is not in the backdrop of a specific order under section 195, is a new evidence in the sense that such appellate proceedings are the original proceedings in that extent. When no objections are raised by the Assessing Officer to the admission of these appeal by the CIT(A) under section 248, without a specific order passed under section 195, grievances raised against the admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A) are devoid of legally sustainable merits. We reject the same.
-
2018 (7) TMI 2213 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Scope of appeal u/s 248 - Ascertainment of tax withholding liability from three foreign remittances made by the assessee - Appeal by person denying liability to deduct tax in certain cases - Whether CIT(A) has erred in issuing the direction U/s.248 of the Act that there is no liability to withhold tax under Sec.195 of the Act on the foreign remittances made? - HELD THAT:- The payment is not for incidental enrichment of experience of the assessee, even if that be so, but for receipt of services by way of review, supervision and consultancy. The consideration for the payments in question is the review, supervision and consultancy services and not for such an incidental enrichment, even if that be, of experience. These services donot make available technical knowledge, experience, skill, know-how or processes.
DR in any case, has not brought on record any material to etc in the sense of transfer of suck knowledge, experience, skill, know how or process etc. In any case, learned Departmental Representative has not brought on record any material to demonstrate that there was any transfer of the skills of service provider to the recipient of services. The arguments raised by the appellant are based on sweeping generalizations and are not supported by any specific evidences in support of the same.
Objection against admission of additional evidence, one has to bear in mind the fact that every evidence produced in an appeal against 248, when it is not in the backdrop of a specific order under section 195, is a new evidence in the sense that such appellate proceedings are the original proceedings in that extent. When no objections are raised by the Assessing Officer to the admission of these appeal by the CIT(A) under section 248, without a specific order passed under section 195, grievances raised against the admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A) are devoid of legally sustainable merits - no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) - Appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (7) TMI 2212 - SC ORDER
Exemption u/s 11 - charitable purpose u/s 2(15) - registration u/s 12AA denied - Whether promotion of sports and games can be considered to be charitable purpose? - as decided by HC contention which has been raised pursuant to the observations and amendment which is made under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act and proviso which is impressed by the counsel for the department and Section 2(15) of the Act and proviso to Section 12AA which has been amended w.e.f. 1.4.2009 which has been introduced in the Finance Act w.e.f. 1.4.2012, will not apply in the present case - HELD THAT:- Delay condoned. Leave granted.
-
2018 (7) TMI 2211 - ITAT MUMBAI
Maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - Disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) deleted by CIT-A - HELD THAT:- As noticed that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than ₹ 20.00 lakhs and the issue contested herein also apparently does not fall in any of the exceptions specified in the Circular. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal of the revenue in limine. However, the revenue is given liberty to move miscellaneous application seeking recall of this order, if it is found that the issue contested in this appeal falls in any of the exception provided in paragraph 10 of the Circular.
-
2018 (7) TMI 2210 - SUPREME COURT
Jurisdiction - power of subordinate courts to use their powers under the code of Criminal procedure - HELD THAT:- The Special Leave Petition is dismissed leaving the questions of law open.
-
2018 (7) TMI 2209 - ITAT BANGALORE
TP adjustment for US transactions - use of contemporaneous data - request of assessee that the price adopted for US transactions may be adopted for non-US transactions also - prices were fixed under MAP in respect of US AEs and this was the claim of the assessee before the Tribunal that the same price may be adopted in respect of non-US AEs - HELD THAT:- As in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2006-07 [2016 (9) TMI 403 - ITAT BANGALORE] Tribunal has restored back the matter to the file of AO/TPO for fresh decision with the direction that the matter should be analyzed by AO/TPO on the same line for non-US transactions and if it is found that factors influencing the price are similar between US and non-US transactions, the price adopted for US transactions may be adopted for non-US transactions also. This was also directed by Tribunal that it was open to TPO to examine the validity of the proposition that price adopted under MAP mechanism can be adopted in respect of other countries also where MAP was not resorted to. Respectfully following this Tribunal order, we restore the TP matter back to the file of AO/TPO for fresh decision with the same directions. The TP issue stands decided in this manner.
Addition of relinquishment and compensation received for such relinquishment of lease option - Revenue or capital receipt - objection of the assessee is this that the lease option is not a tenancy right and therefore, section 55(2) is not applicable - whether the lease option is a capital asset or not? - HELD THAT:- As per the definition of capital asset in section 2(14) as reproduced above, property of any kind held by the assessee whether or not connected with his business or profession is covered by the definition of the term capital asset. There are some exclusions such as stock in trade andconsumable stores or raw materials held for the purposes of his business or profession, personal effects excluding jewellery, archaeological collections, drawings, paintings, sculptures or any work of art and agricultural land situated at some places. These are excluded from the definition of capital asset and in addition to that, certain Gold Bonds, Special Bearer Bonds, 1991 and Gold Deposit Bonds issued under the Gold Deposit Scheme, 1999 are also excluded from the definition of term capital asset but lease option is not an exclusion and therefore, lease option is definitely a capital asset because lease option is a valuable right in our opinion. Hence the first aspect of the issue is decided against the assessee and we hold that lease option is a capital asset.
Whether lease option is equivalent to tenancy right and therefore, section 55(2) of IT Act is applicable? - in the present case, the lease option has expiry date which means that the lease option can be exercised only up to this date i.e. 01.09.2008 and hence, in our considered opinion, whether the property is in existence or not has no relevance because the builder i.e. M/s. Vipul Ltd. has given an option to the assessee to acquire, exact area on lease and assessee decided to surrender and relinquish lease option for a consideration. It is also seen that the lease option was along with all rights and benefits arising there from, including but not limited to any right to sub-lease and any other right, interest benefit etc. consequential in nature, both under the Memorandum of Agreement dated 31.01.2006 and the lease deed dated 10.08.2007 and all these rights were relinquished by the assessee for a consideration of ₹ 34.90 Crores as per agreement dated 08.05.2008. Under these facts, in our considered opinion, the lease option granted to the assessee by the developer is nothing but tenancy right and therefore section 55(2) is applicable in the facts of present case.
What is the amount of consideration received? - As agreed upon between the parties that the outstanding consideration should be reduced to ₹ 16.95 Crores as against ₹ 24 Crores. This supplementary agreement has been executed between the parties in the next Financial Year i.e. Financial Year 2009-10 relevant to Assessment Year 2010-11 whereas we are dealing with Assessment Year 2009-10. As per section 48 of IT Act, income chargeable under the head capital gains shall be computed by deducting from the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of capital asset, some amounts being cost of acquisition, cost of transfer and cost of improvement. Hence for the purpose of computing capital gains, consideration received or accrued both are relevant. As per the relinquishment agreement dated 08.05.2008, consideration of ₹ 34.90 Crores has accrued to the assessee and assessee has also received part payment of it and has relinquished its rights of lease option. By a subsequent event of reduction in agreed consideration, the accrued consideration does not get reduced and such reduction in accrued consideration in future has no relevance for the purpose of determining the capital gain in the present year. Hence on this aspect of the matter also, we find no merit in the claim of the assessee. Accordingly this issue is decided against the assessee.
Disallowance of value of unendorsed FIRCs from export turnover of the company - addition only ground that the same have not been endorsed by the Authorised Dealer ("AD") bank as on date - HELD THAT:- Disallowance was made by the AO for this reason that FIRCs amounting to ₹ 14,84,16,444/- had not been endorsed by authorized dealer bank as on date and before DRP, the assessee submitted that the endorsed FIRCs and DRP has decided the issue in favour of the assessee without obtaining any remand report from AO in this regard. In this view of the matter, we find force in the submission of ld. DR of revenue that the matter should go back to the file of DRP for fresh decision after obtaining remand report from the AO. Accordingly we set aside the order of DRP and consequently the order of AO on this issue and this issue is restored back to the file of DRP for fresh decision after obtaining remand report from the AO. In this manner, ground no. 3 of the revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes
Disallowance of deduction u/s. 10A for Pune STPI unit - HELD THAT:- As submission of the assessee before the AO that mere inadvertent error of not completing the information sought in the Softex forms should not be considered as the ultimate test to allow the deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. The DRP has simply reproduced these submissions of assessee before the AO and decided the issue in favour of the assessee and even the result of submission of the assessee before STPI authorities for endorsing of the Softex forms which were having mistakes as per the assessee was not insisted upon. Even before us, this is not shown that the STPI authorities of Pune has endorsed such Softex forms which were defective as per the assessee - assessee has not satisfied the requirement of law regarding allowability of deduction u/s. 10A for Pune unit. Hence we reverse the order of DRP on this issue and restore the order of AO in draft assessment order on this issue - Decided in favour of revenue.
-
2018 (7) TMI 2208 - ITAT DELHI
Rectification of mistake - CIT(A) as wrongly interpreted the provisions of section 57(iii) of the Act thus making the Order passed bad in law - whether CIT(A) failed to appreciate the nature of interest payment made as also the consequent receipt of interest while upholding the disallowance, which act of the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong both on facts and in law - HELD THAT:- As on account of incorrect submission on fact by the assessee despite the fact that the Buyer Agreement was available before the A.O. the mistake has occurred - the specific clauses have been extracted in the written submissions before the CIT(A)., however the relevant facts appear to have been ignored while passing the order. In these peculiar facts and circumstances we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order accepting the oral prayer of the Sr. DR and restore the issue back to the file of the A.O.
The impugned order is set aside back to the AO with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Said order was pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing itself. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
............
|
