Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2022 2022 (7) This

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

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 121 to 140 of 1518 Records

• 2022 (7) TMI 1399 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Maintainability of appeal against the intimation u/s 143(1) - Addition of interest income while processing the return u/s 143(1) - assessee preferred an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Center Delhi which was dismissed as right course of action for the assessee to file rectification application u/s 154 instead of filing appeal u/s 246A - HELD THAT:- The provisions of section 246A of the Act gives right to the assessee to preferred an appeal to the learned CIT-A, if aggrieved, against the intimation issued by CPC Bangalore under the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act.

  Thus we hold that the learned CIT-A/NFAC erred in not adjudicating the appeal preferred by the assessee on merit. Accordingly we set aside the issue to the learned CIT-A/NFAC to decide the grievance raised by the assessee on merit as per the provisions of law. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1398 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Refund claim u/s 54 of CGST Act - appeal dismissed only on the ground that requisite documents were not submitted at the adjudicating stage - HELD THAT:- Without entering into the dispute as to whether the petitioner/assessee was intimated as to the documents which are necessary to be submitted for claiming refund, this Court is of the considered view that the appellate authority ought to have taken note of the documents which were filed by the petitioner/assessee before the appellate authority in support of his claim for refund. Such finding is supported by the reasons assigned hereinafter.

  Rule 112 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017 (for short, “CGST Rules, 2017”) permits an appellant to produce additional evidence before the appellate authority under certain circumstances. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 112 starts with a non-obstante clause and provides that nothing contained in Rule 112 shall affect the power of the appellate authority to direct the production of any document or the examination of any witness to enable it to dispose of the appeal. Thus, the appellate authority has the power to permit the appellant to produce documents which will enable it to dispose of the appeal effectively - the learned Advocate for the respondents also could not satisfy this Court that the documents produced by the petitioner before the appellate authority are not necessary for the effective disposal of the appeal. The appellate authority, in the considered view of the Court, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law in refusing to consider the documents filed by the petitioner/assessee before the appellate authority.

  Impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1397 - ITAT HYDERABAD
  

  Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - Late filing fee u/s. 234E - levy late filing fee prior to 01.06.2015 - intimation u/s 200A - Diversified views - HELD THAT:- ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Rose Rock Real Estate India Pvt. Ltd [2021 (9) TMI 621 - ITAT MUMBAI] and Srinivasamurthy Kolhially Yalakaiah [2020 (6) TMI 700 - ITAT BANGALORE] as held the issue is debatable then the same takes the adjustment out of the jurisdiction of CPC Bangalore. As debatable issues cannot be decided under computerized adjustment. Hence to conclude since it has been held by higher courts that prior to enabling provision to levy interest under section 234E, the interest for earlier period return due cannot be upheld we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) and decide the issue in favour of assessee

  Thus we hereby allow the appeals of the assessee.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1396 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Income taxable in India - Fabrication charges Receipts as fees for technical services - DTAA between India and Singapore - taxability under Article 12(4)(a) on the ground that one of the group companies, i.e. OC-US, has received such payments from the Indian affiliate - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the assessee is entitled to the benefits of the Indo-Singapore tax treaty, that the assessee does not have any permanent establishment in India, and that, accordingly, income earned by the assessee cannot be taxed as business profits under article 7 of the Indo Singapore tax treaty.

  The OC US and the assessee, a Singapore-based entity, are distinct entities and, they have distinct legal existences. The mere fact that these entities are part of the same multinational group does not require, or justify, ignoring the distinct identities of these entities, or the fact that the operations of these entities are in different jurisdictions. It is also not even the case of the revenue authorities that the refurbishing work is not carried out in Singapore.

  While a lot of emphases is paid by the revenue authorities on the fact that on the same transaction the assessee had paid taxes in India in the immediately preceding year, and the fact that it is part of overall common arrangements that the leasing is done from one jurisdiction and the refurbishing or bushing is done is another jurisdiction. Nothing, however, turns on these arguments also.

  The acceptance of tax liability in one year does not constitute estoppel against the assessee for the other years, and it is for the group to organize a multinational group to organize its activity, as long as it is a bonafide arrangement, in a manner as deemed commercially expedient.

  We are satisfied that so far as the income of the assessee from the refurbishing of the bushes is concerned, it is not taxable in India as the provisions of Article 12(3) cannot be invoked in this case, and that, so far as the provisions of Article 12(4)(a) are concerned, these provisions cannot be invoked as the assessee has not rendered these services in connection with the services “for which a payment described in paragraph 3 is received” by the assessee. As also bearing in mind the entirety of the case, we uphold the plea of the assessee, and delete the impugned addition - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1395 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of reopening of assessment - assessment barred by limitation - Time limit for notice u/s 149 - HELD THAT:- As decided in BRAHM DATT case [2018 (12) TMI 832 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that the amendment of Section 149 of the Act by Finance Act, 2012, which extended limitation for reopening assessment to sixteen years could not be resorted for reopening proceedings concluded before amendment came into effect. Admittedly the amendment came into effect on 1st July, 2012 and the notice under Section 148 was issued on 19th August, 2013.

  The Tribunal after taking note of the decision in Brahm Datt [supra] took into consideration of the facts of the assessee’s case and found that notice for reopening the assessment issued on 19th August, 2013 in respect of the assessment year under consideration, Assessment year 2005-06 was time barred. The view taken by the learned Tribunal does not call for any interference - Decided against revenue.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1394 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Profiteering - De-freezing Bank accounts of petitioner - petitioner contends that the debit freeze orders impugned here would not sustain since the details of the bank accounts which were maintained by the petitioner were known to the respondents - HELD THAT:- The Court notes that the bank guarantee which is proffered together with the amount which stands to the credit of the freezed accounts would safeguard the interest of the respondent during the pendency of the writ petition.

  Consequently, let the petitioner furnish a bank guarantee to the extent of Rs. 950 crores to the satisfaction of the respondents within seven working days from today. Subject to the submission of that bank guarantee, the petitioner may be permitted to operate the bank accounts which form subject matter of the orders under Section 17(1A) to the extent that a sum of Rs. 251 crores which was standing in credit in those accounts on the date of the passing of the impugned orders shall be maintained at all times. Additionally the petitioner shall also furnish to the Enforcement Directorate all details of remittances that may be made from the concerned bank accounts every 48 hours.

  Let this petition be listed on 28.07.2022 for final disposal.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1393 - ITAT KOLKATA
  

  MAT - Denial of deduction being lower of the two i.e. book loss or unabsorbed depreciation claimed in terms of clause (iii) of Explanation (1) to Section 115JB - HELD THAT:- We have examined the evidences/records/ITRs of the assessee in respect of earlier years and observed that the claim of the assessee is correct and to that extent the finding of the CIT(A) cannot be sustained.

  So far as the issue of allowing lower of book loss or unabsorbed depreciation while computing the book profit under section 115JB, we are of the considered view that the issue is debatable and cannot be subject matter of the proceedings u/s 154.

  The case of the assessee is squarely covered by several decisions of the Coordinate Benches in the case of (i) Kanchanganga Estates (P) Limited [1997 (10) TMI 396 - ITAT MUMBAI] (ii) Maccaferri Environmental Solutions (P) Limited [2018 (12) TMI 1974 - ITAT MUMBAI], Cadila Healthcare Limited [2021 (12) TMI 1244 - ITAT AHMEDABAD], Smt. Vandana Manoj Shah [2016 (3) TMI 1452 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] & M/s. Madhav Stock Vision [2018 (4) TMI 1947 - ITAT MUMBAI] - We, therefore direct AO to allow the claim of the assessee while computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1392 - ITAT CHENNAI
  

  Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Addition u/s 69A - Assessee has submitted that the assessee has already opted to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2020 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the assessee has opted to avail the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2020 and filed Form 1 and Form 2 on 10.11.2020 and subsequently Form 3 were issued to the assessee on 23.12.2020 by the Designated Authority and moreover, Form 4 was filed on 04.02.2021 for issuance of Form 5 and Form 5 was also issued and taxes paid accordingly, much before the revision order under section 263 of the Act was passed on 25.02.2021. Since the assessee could produce the above details of availing Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2020 and the Designated Authority has already issued Form 5 during the course of revision proceedings, the ld. PCIT was not aware of the above facts.

  Thus we of the considered opinion that the revision order passed u/s 263 by the ld. PCIT cannot survive. Revision order passed under section 263 is quashed. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1391 - ITAT BANGALORE
  

  TP Adjustment - comparable selection - Turnover and Abnormal Profits Filter - exclusion of Celestial Biolabs Ltd. raised - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that, this comparable cannot be compared with that of the assessee which is a captive service provider, as observed by this Tribunal vide order dated 06/04/2018.

  Also recorded by this Tribunal that, the assessee before us is engaged in the business of providing software development and other related support services to the SAP AG Group companies and conducts its operations from various undertakings registered under STPI scheme. Based on the above analysis, we hold that this comparable is not a fit company to be included in the list of comparables to compute the ALP of the transaction.

  Exclusion of comparables as functionally dissimilar with that of assessee as captive service provider.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1390 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  TP Adjustment - comparable selection - As per ITAT Excel Infoways failed the diminishing revenue filter - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that the intent of Chapter X of the Act is to compute the income in relation to a controlled transaction between an assessee and its associated enterprise having regard to the arm’s length price in order to nullify the effect of transfer of income to a jurisdiction outside India, if any, in respect of the controlled transaction. The exercise of determining the arm’s length price in respect of international transactions between related enterprises is aimed at determining the price which would have been charged for products and services, as nearly as possible, if such international transactions were not controlled by virtue of their being executed between related parties.

  The object of the exercise is to remove the effect of any influence on the prices or costs that may have been exerted on account of the international transactions being entered into between related parties. It is clear that for the exercise of determining the arm’s length price to be reliable, it is necessary that the controlled transactions be compared with uncontrolled transactions which are similar in all material aspects.

  Since, in the present case Excel Infoways Pvt. Ltd. fails not only the service revenue from export/ITES filter of 75% insisted upon by the TPO but also the diminishing revenue filter as is apparent from the chart reproduced hereinabove, no interference is called for in the finding recorded by the Tribunal. No question of law arises for consideration.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1389 - ITAT SURAT
  

  Disallowance u/s 36(1)(viia) - provision for bad and doubtful debts - HELD THAT:- We find that combination of this Bench in assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2010-11 [2022 (5) TMI 856 - ITAT SURAT] has confirmed the order of Ld. CIT(A), thereby decided the appeal in favour of the assessee as held that the assessee is clearly eligible for the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) as it fulfilled the two condition that any provisions for bad and doubtful debts made by Co-operative bank is allowable if it does not exceed 7 ½ of total income (computed before making deduction under this clause under chapter VIA) and an amount not exceeding 10% of aggregate average advances made by rural branch.

  AO has not doubted the number of rural branches as defined under section 36(1) (viia) (d)(ia) or the total of the advances made by rural branches of assessee-bank and the computation made in the prescribed manner.

  As the provision for bad and doubtful debts against standard assets is covered in the main provisions of Sec. 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) who we find had rightly deleted the addition made by the A.O on the said count. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1388 - ITAT DELHI
  

  TP Adjustment - Validity of DPR orders - Admmision of additional grounds - as contended that the DRP has not considered the objections of the assessee and there was no discussion/finding given in respect of the objections raised by the assessee qua 'distribution segment', 'light processing segment', 'provision of research and engineering', 'provision of administrative services' and 'import of Rynaxpyr Technical' - HELD THAT:- We find merit in the contention of the assessee that before DRP the assessee had raised various objections, regarding 'light processing segment', 'distribution segment', 'provision of research and engineering', 'provision of administrative services' and 'import of Rynaxpyr Technical'. The assessee also filed additional evidences in support of its contention.

  There is no discussion by the learned DRP in respect of additional evidences and the objections raised by the assessee before the DRP.

  DR could not point out from the direction of learned DRP about the disposal of the additional grounds and submissions of the assessee company. During the course of hearing learned representatives of the parties stated that the matter may be remanded to the learned DRP for deciding the additional grounds. Therefore,we hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the issues to the learned DRP to decide the additional grounds raised by the assessee company and pass direction afresh in accordance with law. Grounds of appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1387 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Rectification application - MA Filed by the Revenue u/s 254(2) against the Tribunal order non deciding issues - HELD THAT:- First issue of interest on unpaid lease charges is considered and decided by Hon'ble ITAT . Similarly, the second issue allowance of lease rent is also considered decided by Hon'ble ITAT.

  Allowance of NAA charges - contention the Department is correct as the said issue has not been decided by ITAT in the above order, and hence, the MA of the Department is allowed and order is to be re-called only to decide this ground no. 3 regarding NAA charges.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1386 - ITAT KOLKATA
  

  Revision u/s 263 - As per CIT derivative loss could not be adjusted against the income computed u/s 44AD - HELD THAT:- As assessee invited our attention to the paper-book to submit that show-cause notices were served by the AO during the assessment proceedings wherein the queries were raised regarding the adjustment of derivative loss against the income declared u/s 44AD of the Act which were duly replied and the relevant evidences in support of the claim were also furnished.

  AO having satisfied with the reply and explanation submitted by the assessee passed the assessment order accepting the adjustment/set off of derivative loss against business income of the assessee.As submitted that even otherwise there is no bar under the Income Tax Act for setting off of derivative loss against business income.

  DR could not rebut the above contention of assessee. No justification on the part of the ld. PCIT to exercise his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 - Appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1385 - ITAT COCHIN
  

  Disallowance u/s 143(1)(a) - deduction u/s 80P - whether the adjustment/disallowance can be made under Section 143(1)(a) or not? - HELD THAT:- As decided in AA520 VEERAPPAMPALAYAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED [2021 (4) TMI 1169 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] scope of an 'intimation' under section 143(1)(a) of the Act, extends to the making of adjustments based upon errors apparent from the return of income and patent from the record, Thus to say that the scope of 'incorrect claim' should be circumscribed and restricted by the Explanation which employs the term 'entry' would, not be correct and the provision must be given full and unfettered play. The explanation cannot curtail or restrict the main thrust or scope of the provision and due weightage as well as meaning has to be attributed to the purposes of section 143(1)(a) - we reject the contention raised by the assessee that the disallowance cannot be made under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act.

  Deduction u/s 80P - Belated filing of return - Assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80P even if he has filed the return of income belatedly. Respectfully following the case THE CHIRAKKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. [2016 (4) TMI 826 - KERALA HIGH COURT] we hold that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1384 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Levy of penalty - expiry of the e-way bill which was expired on 2nd August, 2021 at 11.59 p.m. and the vehicle in question was intercepted at 6.45 p.m. on 3rd August, 2021 - HELD THAT:- Learned advocate appearing for the respondents could not make out any case against the petitioners that there was any deliberate or willful intention of the petitioners to avoid and evade the tax and he opposes this writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case which appears from record, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the aforesaid impugned order of the appellate authority and adjudicating authority and as a consequence, petitioners will be entitled to get the refund of the penalty in question subject to compliance of legal formalities.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1383 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Effect of violation of the condition provided in the advertisement that the application has to be in the language for which the candidates want to attempt the question paper - what is the effect of using different language in the application form than the OMR sheet? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, more than 11,000 posts were advertised for filling up of the posts of Constables in the RPF. Though the number of candidates who appeared in response to such advertisement is not available, but generally, it is a matter of common experience that candidates much more than the posts advertised are the aspirants for such posts. The condition that language in the application form shall be used for the purposes of OMR examination is for the reason that in case any dispute arises in respect of identity of the candidate, the same can be verified from the two handwritings. Still further, the question papers are required to be set up in the languages other than Hindi and English as well. The applications in different languages were to be sent to different Nodal Officers in Gorakhpur, Kolkata, Bhubaneshwar and Chennai. Still further, the OMR answer sheet is bilingual, in Hindi and English, but it would be in some other language if a candidate has chosen a language other than English or Hindi.

  The answer sheets have to be in the language chosen by the candidate in the application form. It is well settled that if a particular procedure in filling up the application form is prescribed, the application form should be filled up following that procedure alone. This was enunciated by Privy Council in the NAZIR AHMAD VERSUS KING EMPEROR (NO. 2) [1936 (6) TMI 11 - PRIVY COUNCIL], wherein it was held that that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.

  Similarly, this Court in MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI (MCGM) VERSUS ABHILASH LAL & ORS. [2019 (11) TMI 844 - SUPREME COURT] and OPTO CIRCUIT INDIA LTD. VERSUS AXIS BANK & OTHERS [2021 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT] has followed the said principle. Since the advertisement contemplated the manner of filling up of the application form and also the attempting of the answer sheets, it has to be done in the manner so prescribed. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Division Bench of the High Court that on account of lapse of time, the writ petitioner might have attempted the answer sheet in a different language is not justified as the use of different language itself disentitles the writ petitioner from any indulgence in exercise of the power of judicial review.

  Since the writ petitioner has used different language for filling up of the application form and the OMR answer book, therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected by the appellants.

  The order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained in law, the same is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1382 - ITAT PUNE
  

  TP Adjustment - comparable selection - SDS segment - exclude Bhilwara Infotechnology Ltd. From the final set of comparables for software development services segment - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) holds that this company earns its entire revenue from software and its related segment from the domestic market. The extract of the annual report clearly specifies that “Software Development Services (SDS) segment is 100% domestic. Therefore, this company was rightly removed as a comparable in the software development service segment by the ld. CIT(A). Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

  Inclusion of Aspire Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. in the final set of comparables for software development services segment - CIT(A) has directed exclusion of this company - As in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. J.P. Morgaon India (P) Ltd. [2019 (1) TMI 1274 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] this company was excluded from the final list of comparable companies. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the finding of the ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference and the same is upheld.

  IT Enabled Services segment - Revenue wants exclusion of Jindal Intellicom Ltd., from the final set of comparables in IT Enabled Services segment - We find that the view taken by the learned T.P.O is taken to reject this company from the list of comparable due to foreign exchange less than 75%. In the case of this company, its export turnover ratio is 70.80% and it cannot be said that there is only a minor deviation from the percentage of filter of 75% as applied by the ld. T.P.O. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances the reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of Mercer Consulting [2016 (8) TMI 1163 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] is misplaced. Even going by spirit by the aforesaid decision what is minor deviation and what is major deviation, it all depends on the facts of each case. In our considered view in this case, failure regarding export filter at 70.8% instead of 75% is not a minor deviation. Therefore, we uphold the order of the T.P.O directing rejection of this company as comparable. Ground No. 4 of the Revenue is allowed.

  Excluding MPS Ltd. from the final set of comparables for ITes segment - MPS Limited is functionally different from that of the assessee company in more-so that high end activities of MPS Ltd is akin to IT services and not ITes - we direct the AO/TPO to exclude MPS Limited from final list of comparable companies.

  M/s. Domex E-Data Pvt. Ltd., CES Ltd. and Manipal Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd. deselected from the final set of comparables as dissimilar with regard to ITes segment

  Exclusion of One Touch Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd.- It has been analysed by the ld. CIT(A) that this company is into ITES activity and therefore, it is included as comparable in the final set of comparables. Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances and the functional spectrum of the assessee, we are in conformity with the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) and we uphold the inclusion of this company in the final set of comparables in respect of the assessee.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1381 - ITAT BANGALORE
  

  Addition u/s 68 - cash deposits made during demonetization period in all the bank accounts - HELD THAT:- It is an undisputed fact accepted by both the AO and the CIT(A) that the cash receipts are nothing but sale proceeds in the business of the assessee.

  The addition is made for the deposit of SBN during demonetization period on the ground that the cash sales is inflated by the assessee. The amount of sales which is not disputed is already offered to tax by the assessee by reflecting the same in the trading / P&L Account. This fact is not doubted by the lower authorities. In that case, if the cash deposits are added under section 68 of the Act, then it would result in taxing the impugned amount twice, once as a sales income and secondly as an addition under section 68 - As in the case of PCIT Vs. Singhal Exim Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (2) TMI 1061 - DELHI HIGH COURT] on similar issue took the view that the addition under section 68 of the Act is contradictory to the stand taken while accepting the business income and that the amount in question have already been charged to the income of the assessee, cannot be taxed again under section 68 of the Act.

  Also in the case of CIT Vs. Devi Prasad Viswanath Prasad [1968 (8) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] on the issue of additions under section 68 held that “It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash receipts represents income, it is income from a source, which has already been taxed.” Applying this ratio, in our view, the assessee has discharged the onus by offering the sales for taxation and therefore the same income cannot be taxed again - addition made under section 68 of the Act cannot be sustained and is therefore deleted. This ground is allowed in favour of the assessee.

  Addition made u/s 69C - deduction towards housing loan interest - AO concluded that there is no source for the repayment of housing loan for the assessee and hence treated an amount which the AO arrived at from the housing loan statement as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C - Addition upheld by the CIT(A) on the ground that majority of the loan is repaid in cash and the genuineness of the funds used for repayment has not been proved by the assessee - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of the cash book, it is also noticed that the assessee is having sufficient cash balance generated out of cash sales as on the date of repayment of the loan. In view of the above discussion of facts, we are of the considered view that the assessee is having sufficient source explaining the repayment of housing loan and therefore delete the addition made under section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure. This ground of the assessee is allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1380 - ITAT RAJKOT
  

  TCS u/s 206C(1) - default for not collecting tax at source on sale of scrap - assessee had not submitted Form 27C comprising of the buyer's declaration to the Commissioner of Income-tax in time - HELD THAT:- As perused the material on record in the case of Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. 2018 (5) TMI 1093 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] AO made addition on the ground that the assessee had breached section 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in case of sale of scrap and that the assessee had not submitted Form 27C comprising of the buyer's declaration to the Commissioner of Income-tax in time. The Tribunal held that there is no dispute about the fact that the assessee has belatedly submitted relevant Form No. 27C collected from its buyers. The same were placed on record before the Assessing Officer itself who declined to accept the same in view of delay in submission thereof. There is no issue qua genuineness of these Forms. Thus, the Gujarat High Court held that addition with the aid of section 206C could not be made.

  In the case of CIT vs. Chhaganbhai K Sanghani [2018 (5) TMI 1093 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that where in case of assessee, a dealer in scrap, AO levied interest and tax in terms of section 206C(7) on account of non-collection of tax source, in view of fact that asssessee had submitted certificates provided by buyers under sub-section (1A) if section 206C before appellate authorities, impugned order passed by A.O. was to be set aside

  Further, in the case of Chandmal Sancheti [2016 (8) TMI 952 - ITAT JAIPUR] held that no time limit is provided in section 206C(1A) to make a declaration in Form 27 collected from buyers; hence delay in filing declaration shall not be ground to deny benefit of declaration to assessee. In light of the above judicial precedents on the subject, in the interests of justice, we are restoring the matter to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer to decide the issue de novo after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present his case on merits. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

  ---

1 ....34567891011........ 76