|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1292 Records
-
2024 (1) TMI 1152 - SUPREME COURT
Dismissal from service - Disciplinary proceedings against police officer - appellant has been acquitted in the criminal case - Involvement in Customs case of Smuggling of heroin - multiple proceedings - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the appellant deliberately kept away from the inquiry proceedings. He was aware of the manner in which the disciplinary proceedings were going on but elected to stay away. He did not report for duty from 23rd February, 1989 till the order of dismissal from service was passed against him by the respondent No. 4 - Disciplinary Authority on 20th December, 1991. It took the appellant seven long years to approach the Appellate Authority against the dismissal order passed against him sometime in the year 1998.
The factum of the appellant having been discharged in the criminal case would not be of any material consideration as the Disciplinary Authority1 had taken action against the appellant for remaining absent from duty which is clearly brought out from the record.
The present appeal is dismissed as meritless while leaving the parties to bear their own expenses.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1151 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Grant of permission to respondent No. 1 to travel abroad subject to certain conditions.
The respondent No. 1 submits that in terms of the aforesaid order, the respondent No. 1 traveled abroad and has also returned back to India. By a further order dated 18th December, 2023 in Misc. Application No. C.C.No.4767/Misc./2023, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai has further relaxed the conditions which were imposed by earlier orders.
HELD THAT:- Nothing survives in this petition - The petition stands disposed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1150 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Evasion of tax - Failure to produce the e-Way Bill in time due to certain technical difficulties - whether or not there was any actual intent to evade tax on part of the petitioner? - HELD THAT:- In the case of VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Another [2018 (5) TMI 455 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], while dealing with a situation where Part- B of the e-Way Bill was not generated, this Court observed that the petitioner therein was supposed to fill up Part- B of the e- Way Bill giving all the details including the vehicle number before the goods were loaded in a vehicle, and it failed to do so. However, there was no ill intention at the hands of the petitioner therein to evade tax, since the documents accompanying the goods contained all the relevant details.
In the instant case before me, although the petitioner failed to generate the e-Way Bill on time, the Tax Invoices issued contained all the relevant details including the detail of the vehicle transporting the goods. Moreover, the CGST and the SGST were already charged by SAIL. Therefore, no intention to evade tax is evident in this case.
In the present factual matrix, it is clear that the goods were accompanied by the tax invoices. Furthermore, the tax invoices contained the details of the vehicle that was transporting the goods. It is further to be noted that one e-Way Bill was generated before the detention and one subsequent to the detention, but before passing of the order under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. Under these circumstances, there does not appear to be any intention to evade the tax - the petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to mere technical mistakes that may have arisen, without there being any intention to evade tax.
The impugned orders in the instant case are a result of the Respondent No. 2 and the Respondent No. 3 exceeding their jurisdiction and not proceeded in accordance with the essential requirement of the law where it was meant to adminiter. Therefore, a writ of certiorari is warranted in the instant case.
Accordingly, let there be a writ of certiorari issued against the order dated February 21, 2019 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and the order dated October 20, 2019 passed by the Respondent No. 3. The said orders are quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1149 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Scope of the Notification No.53/2023 extending the time limit for filing an appeal u/s 107 - time to file appeal has been extended till January 31, 2024 - it is submitted that this notification only deals with the orders passed u/s 73 and 74 of the Act and does not take into account the orders passed u/s 129 and 130 of the Act - HELD THAT:- This Court is not in a position to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Central Government to include Sections 129 and 130 of the Act in the said notification. However, the Government can very well consider adding these two Sections in the said notification, so that the benefit that has been provided for the orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the Act can be extended to Sections 129 and 130 of the Act.
In the light of the above, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, Ministry of Finance, is directed to look into this aspect of the matter at the earliest - The matter is adjourned sine die with liberty granted to the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner to mention the same at the appropriate time.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1148 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Levy of Penalty - Failure to update the E-way bill on change of vehicle after breakdown - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The imposition of penalties within the realm of tax laws should not be based solely on insignificant technical errors devoid of any financial consequences. The foundational principle guiding this approach is the commitment to maintain a tax system that is characterized by fairness and justice, where the severity of penalties corresponds to the gravity of the offence committed. While penalties serve a pivotal role in ensuring compliance with tax laws, legal frameworks stress the importance of establishing the actual intent to evade taxes as a prerequisite for their just imposition. This emphasis underscores the critical need to differentiate between inadvertent technical errors and purposeful attempts to circumvent tax obligations.
The burden of proof falls squarely on tax authorities to demonstrate the genuine intent to evade tax before penalizing taxpayers. This safeguard is indispensable to shield individuals and entities from punitive measures arising from honest mistakes, administrative errors, or technical discrepancies that lack any malicious intent. The fundamental principle requiring an intent to evade tax for the imposition of penalties is crucial for preserving the fairness and integrity of taxation systems. In order to uphold a balanced and equitable approach to tax enforcement, it is imperative to recognize and acknowledge the distinction between technical errors and intentional evasion.
The orders impugned in this writ petition are not sustainable in law wherein the authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction and have not acted in accordance with the provisions of the statutes. Accordingly, the order September 13, 2018 and October 3, 2019 are quashed and set-aside.
Petition allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1147 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking quashing of show cause notice - seeking restoration and revival of GST registration of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Respondents shall furnish to the petitioner the entire material available with the respondents in support of the show cause notice on or before 08.02.2024.
It is clarified that in case petitioner is aggrieved by any further order, it would be entitled to avail such remedies as may be permissible in law - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1146 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of assessment order - imposition of tax, interest and penalty - petitioner submits that the petitioner be given an opportunity to contest the claim especially considering that the claim is confined to a difference in turnover as between Form GSTR-2B and GSTR-3B - HELD THAT:- The petitioner did not respond either to the intimation in Form GST-DRC- 01A or to the show cause notice in Form GST-DRC-01. In addition, the petitioner did not attend the personal hearing. The explanation of the petitioner is that the consultant did not keep the petitioner informed. The consultant, in turn, states that the notices were not available on the tab relating to regular returns and were instead accessible only through the tab relating to additional notices.
The fact remains that a registered person carrying on a small business did not have the opportunity to respond to the claim made by the tax department with regard to the discrepancy between the returns in Form GSTR-2B and Form GSTR-3B. Solely for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order calls for interference.
The matter is remanded for re-consideration. It is made clear that the petitioner will not have an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice and the opportunity would be limited to participation in the proceedings before the assessing officer and making any submissions in relation thereto - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1145 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Suspension of the GST registration - SCN issued on the alleged ground that there is violation of Rule 86B of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- The petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a response to the show cause notice within one week. and on such reply being filed, respondent shall dispose of the show cause notice by a speaking order within two weeks thereafter. Respondent shall also give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before disposal of the show cause notice.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1144 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner with retrospective effect - failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT:- Registration cannot be cancelled with retrospective effect mechanically. It can be cancelled only if the proper officer deems it fit to do so. Such satisfaction cannot be subjective but must be based on some objective criteria. Merely, because a taxpayer has not filed the returns for some period does not mean that the taxpayer’s registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when the returns were filed and the taxpayer was compliant.
The order of cancellation is modified to the extent that the same shall operate with effect from 01.02.2019, i.e., the date on which the petitioner discontinued the business - the petitioner shall furnish all requisite details to the respondents as required to be submitted by the petitioner in respect of letter dated 07.03.2020 to enable the respondents to ascertain if any demand is liable raised against the petitioner.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1143 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking a direction to the respondent to revoke suspension of the GST Registration of the petitioner - seeking also to set aside SCN - HELD THAT:- The petition is disposed of permitting petitioner to file a detailed response to the show cause notice and provide all requisite details and information, as sought for by the department within two weeks. On such information being provided, respondent shall dispose of show cause notice by a speaking order within two weeks thereafter. Respondent shall also give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before disposal of the show cause notice.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1142 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Cancellation of registration of petitioner - petitioner submitted that the order for cancellation of registration has been passed without any application of mind - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the facts are similar to one in SURENDRA BAHADUR SINGH VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. COMMERCIAL TAX (GST) LKO. AND 2 OTHERS [2023 (8) TMI 1262 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein the appeal was barred by time under Section 107 of the Act. However, the Division Bench in Surendra Bahadur Singh's case took into consideration the original order and set aside the same being non-reasoned and allowed the petitioner therein to file reply to the show cause notice.
The orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order in original dated January 18, 2023 and the appellate order dated October 12, 2023 are quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1141 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner with retrospective effect - failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months - HELD THAT:- During the hearing an affidavit has been handed over by learned counsel for the Petitioner in Court wherein, it is stated that petitioner has not carried out any business since last Sale Invoice which was issued on 28.01.2019. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Petitioner has filed GST returns till March, 2021.
Further, in the affidavit petitioner has undertaken to file all the statutory returns pending under the GST till order of cancellation and also to discharge any liabilities on account of tax, interest and late fees within two weeks of opening up of the portal enabling the petitioner to make necessary compliances. The affidavit is taken on record. Petitioner is bound down to the affidavit.
The order of cancellation is modified to the extent that the same shall operate with effected from 28.01.2019, i.e., the date on which the petitioner is alleged to have last carried on business - Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1140 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Validity of Audit u/s 65 and Rule 101 of the GST - Violation of principles of natural justice - it is submitted that petitioner had filed reply dated 19.12.2023 to the discrepancy notice under Rule 101 (4) of the APGST/CGST Rules, 2017 served on the petitioner on 12.12.2022, but without considering the same the Final Audit Report was submitted - HELD THAT:- Sub Rule (4) of Rule 101, provides that the proper officer may inform the registered person of the discrepancies noticed, if any, as observed in the audit and the said person may file his reply. The proper officer shall finalise the findings of the audit after due consideration of the reply furnished. In view of Rule 101(4), it is evident that after informing about the discrepancies noticed, if the person files the reply, the same is to be considered and on such consideration, the findings of the Final Audit Report are to be furnished. Here, it is now not disputed that the petitioner filed the reply and the same was not considered while finalizing the findings of the audit. The Final Audit Report is therefore in violation of the principles of natural justice as also the statutory provisions.
The impugned Final Audit Report deserves to be quashed. The writ petition deserves to be allowed with further directions to the respondents. Any further proceeding if initiated, based on the impugned Final Audit Report, can also not stand.
The writ petition is partly allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1139 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Validity of Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - queries raised by the AO in the course of the original assessing proceedings - Petitioner, objects to the reopening of assessment essentially on the ground that Petitioner had provided information regarding all the queries raised by the AO and it is only after satisfying himself regarding all the information that the original assessment order was passed. He contends that there are no reasons to believe that income has escaped the assessment and the reopening is based on a mere change of opinion - HELD THAT:- It is settled law that reopening of assessment proceedings on the basis of escapement of income is not permissible on the ground of change of opinion of the AO. Once a query is raised during assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the AO while completing the assessment.
It is not necessary that an assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of the query itself. This Court in its decision in the matter of Aroni Commercials Limited [2014 (2) TMI 659 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has expounded the law in this regard.
In the present case, the queries raised by the AO in the course of the original assessing proceedings followed by replies given by the Petitioner clearly show that the entire material was before the AO and applying his mind to the said material, the AO has passed the Assessment Order dated 20th July 2018. The statement of accounts regarding details of expenses and investment relating to earning of exempt income was accepted by the AO. The letter dated 4th August 2017 issued by Petitioner alongwith the financial statements, on record indicates that all queries raised by the AO by its letter dated 19th July 2017 were answered.
In the Assessment Orders u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2012-13, AY 2013-14 & AY 2014-15 the returned income was accepted as assessed income and there were no disallowances.
Thus the ‘reasons to believe’ forming part of Section 147 of the Act in this case, clearly points to the fact that the reopening of assessment was based on the information accessible by the AO. There is no tangible material available with the AO to justify reopening of assessment of income. Considering all no hesitation in holding that the reopening of assessment of Petitioner’s income by the AO is only on the basis of a change in his opinion, which is impermissible in law. Petition thus deserves to be allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1138 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Immunity from imposing penalty u/s 270AA - Penalty u/s 270A for failure to file the return of income (ITR) - under reported income - Period of limitation - whether the facts and circumstances justify exemption from imposition of penalty and whether the application in such regard was filed in time?
HELD THAT:- Delay is about one month beyond the stipulated period - By taking into account the fact that the gross total income disclosed by the petitioner in the return of income was accepted in order dated 09.03.2023 and the fact that the total tax liability of Rs. 3,68,906/-, as disclosed in the return of income, was also accepted in order dated 09.03.2023, this is a fit case to condone the delay of 30 days in filing the application for immunity from imposition of penalty. Therefore, the delay is condoned.
Under reporting of income - As per clause Sub section 6 (a) of Section 270A the amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation, which is accepted as bona fide is liable to be excluded provided all material facts were disclosed. This case appears to fall within the scope of clause (a) of sub-section 6 of Section 270 A. In any event, since the order rejecting the application for immunity from imposition of penalty warrants interference, the consequential order is also liable to be quashed.
For reasons set out above, the impugned orders are quashed. As a consequence, the first respondent is directed to re-consider the application for immunity from imposition of penalty on merits by taking into account the observations set out in this order.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1137 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Compounding application u/s 279 - Period of limitation with regard to compounding of offence - exclusion of time held that the period running from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022[Covid period] - HELD THAT:- Neither sub-section (2) nor any of the other sub-sections of Section 279 prescribe a period of limitation with regard to compounding of offences. By taking note of this aspect, the guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes on 14.06.2019 were quashed by this Court.
At this point of time, the said judgment holds the field. Even otherwise, the complaint was lodged on 03.01.2019. A period of about fifteen months lapsed between the date of complaint and the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. If the period excluded under orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, i.e. the period running from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, is excluded the compounding application filed on 19.05.2022 would be within the period prescribed in the guidelines of the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
For reasons set out above, the conclusions recorded in paragraph 2 of the impugned order are unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed. As a corollary, the compounding application of the petitioner shall be considered and disposed of on merits. The first respondent is directed to dispose of the compounding application within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1136 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Benefits under the VsV Act [Vivad Se Vishwas Act] denied - Petitioner made a short payment, due to which the Petitioner's declaration was not accepted - Respondents closed their old website and migrated to a new website and Petitioner has pleaded that, as a result, there were several technical glitches in accessing the new website - HELD THAT:- Respondents should have either accepted the Petitioner's payment made within 15 days from the receipt of Form 3 or at least informed the Petitioner that she was required to pay an additional amount on or before 31.10.2021. The Respondents did neither.
Even the requirement of paying an additional amount was informed to the Petitioner only by communication dated 01.04.2022, long after the extended date of 31.10.2021 had lapsed. Suppose the object of the VsV Act is to reduce the pending tax litigations, grant relief to eligible declarants and generate substantial revenue for the Government. In that case, such an approach cannot be said to be in furtherance of such an objective. Such an approach almost amounts to frustrating the provisions of the VsV Act, and the scheme made thereunder.
In this case, the delay alleged on the part of the Petitioner is hardly 11 days. The alleged deficit payment, if any, is of hardly Rs. 2,21,862/-. From the facts borne out of the record, it is difficult to hold that there was any such delay. Even if it is assumed that there was some marginal delay, this delay is attributable to the technical glitches referred to by the Petitioner and also the mistakes of the Respondents in processing the Petitioner's declaration.
As noted even if the contention about technical glitches is kept aside, this is a matter where the Respondents themselves committed several errors in processing the Petitioner's declaration in Form l, which was made within the prescribed period and by due compliance with the prescribed procedure. This is a matter where the Petitioner withdrew her pending appeal and where the Petitioner, in the first instance, determined the amount payable under the VsV Act correctly but had to struggle to get the Respondent's determination corrected.
Even though the Petitioner had filed Form 4 and made a payment on 12.10.2021, i.e. much before the extended date of 31.10.2021 still, the impugned communication dated 22.01.2022 erroneously alleged that the Petitioner had not filed Form 4 or that the Petitioner had made no payments before the extended date
Thus we think that the petitioner should not have been denied the benefits under the VsV Act. We direct the Respondents to accept the Petitioner's declaration in Form 1 under the VsV Act and process the same by issuing the final certificate in Form 5 subject Petitioner must pay the balance amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 31.10.2021 till the date of payment, which shall be within 21 days from today; and shall pay an additional amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Respondents within 21 days from today.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1135 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Reassessment proceedings against dead person - HELD THAT:- As reopening notice u/s 148 issued in the name of a dead assessee is null and void being without jurisdiction. Recently, this Court in MEET LALWANI LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MRS AMITA LALWANI Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 (1) INDORE, PR. COMMISSINOER OF INCOME TAX. [2023 (11) TMI 1196 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] has also held that notice and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom in the name of deceased assessee are not sustainable. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1134 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance of depreciation on wind mill - sequence of events to show that the assessee is the beneficial owner of the asset - AR submitted that depreciation is claimed by the transferor of the assets and therefore not allowed in the hands of the assessee in the same year - AO did not accept the explanation of the assessee that it had purchased the wind mill during the FY relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 due to lack of any supporting document and the fact that enquiry by the Ld. AO revealed that no sale of wind mill was recorded in the books of the seller APIL for Financial Year 2014-15
HELD THAT:- Admittedly, seller company APIL has claimed depreciation on wind mill during the A.Y. 2015-16. Therefore denial of impugned depreciation in the hands of the assessee is justified. The contention raised during appellate proceedings have been dealt with by the Ld. CIT(A) by recording cogent reasons. The decision in the case of Smt. Sivakami [2009 (11) TMI 127 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] will not render assistance to the assessee as in that case the assessee established ownership of buses by documentary evidence whereas in the case at hand purchase of wind mill in the Financial Year 2014-15 could not be proved with documentary evidence. The twin conditions precedent, namely ownership and use of the asset i.e. wind mill, for purposes of assessee’s business during the Financial Year 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 are not satisfied in the case of the assessee. We, therefore decline to interfere and decide ground No. 1 against the assessee.
Addition u/s 56(2)(viib) - shares being issued at excessive rate - adopting a different method i.e. Net Asset Value method of valuation - HELD THAT:- As not in dispute that the assessee issued 12,03,000/- equity shares to its 100% holding company, at a premium of Rs. 40/- each. It is also not in dispute that shares have been issued at premium based on fair market value as computed and certified by Chartered Accountant who determined the fair market value in accordance with Discounted Cash Flow method which is a well recognised method of valuation under Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. In this view of the matter, in our humble opinion, AO/ CIT(A) are not justified in adopting a different method i.e. Net Asset Value method of valuation resulting in the impugned addition u/s 56(2)(viib) of the Act.
In an identical case of KBC India Pvt. Ltd [2022 (11) TMI 1362 - ITAT DELHI] equity shares were allotted by the assessee to its holding company at premium and the Tribunal held that in such a scenario no addition can be made u/s 56(2)(viib).
Thus we hold that the objective behind the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is to prevent unlawful gain by issuing company in the garb of capital receipts. In the transaction between holding and its subsidiary company no income can be said to accrue to the ultimate beneficiary i.e. holding company. The chargeability of deemed income arising from transactions between holding and subsidiary or vice-versa militates against the solemn object of section 56(2)(viib) - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (1) TMI 1133 - ITAT KOLKATA
Capital gain computation - reselling of asset - Stamp Duty Valuation - year of transfer - AO had received an information that assessee has sold an immovable property whose sale value did not match with the Stamp Duty Valuation, vis-à-vis shown by the assessee - addition made with the aid of Section 50C(1)
HELD THAT:- As per Section 50C and its first proviso if an assessee has received a consideration or such consideration has accrued to the assessee on sale of a capital assets/ building is less than the value adopted or assessed for the purpose of charging Stamp Duty on such transaction, then, full sale consideration would be deemed equal to the amount on which Stamp Duty has been charged.
In this present case assessee has purchased a plot at Indirapuram, Gaziabad and sale deed was executed in favour of the assessee. Later on assessee sold this plot for a consideration as received by the assessee through Bank Draft. The assessee has further executed Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma who resold this plot on 18th November, 2011 to one other.
Therefore, in the hands of the assessee the Stamp Duty Valuation ought to have been determined in the year 2000 and not 2011. Gaziabad Development Authority must have executed the Conveyance Deed in favour of the assessee more than the value determined by the Registering Authority for the purpose of Stamp Duty. Therefore, a deeming sale consideration cannot be assumed in the hands of the assessee in A.Y. 2011. The proviso appended to Section 50C duly protects the assessee from considering the Stamp Duty value as full sale consideration in the hands of the assessee in 2011. Therefore, both the authorities have erred in computing the alleged long-term capital gain in the hands of the assessee. We allow this ground and delete the addition made by AO. Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
