|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1556 Records
-
2025 (1) TMI 1417
Challenge to tax demand order under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - petitioner being unaware of issuance of the notices as well as passing of the orders, could neither appear before the authority nor question the validity of the impugned orders within the period of limitation - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- At present, it does appear that the petitioner is entitled to a benefit of doubt. No material exist to reject the contention being advanced that the impugned order was not reflecting under the tab "view notices and orders".
No useful purpose may be served for keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit or even relegating the petitioner to the available statutory remedy. The entire disputed amount is lying in deposit with the State Government. Therefore, there is no outstanding demand. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction, the assessee may treat the impugned order as the final notice and submit his written reply within a period of two weeks.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1416
Seeking grant of Regular bail - demand of bribe for grant of GST Registration - Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - HELD THAT:- There is sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. Per paragraph 5 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 08.10.2024. Per the custody certificate dated 02.12.2024, the petitioner’s total custody in this FIR is 01 month and 25 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.
Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1415
Accrual of income in India - Capital gains tax payable by the Mauritian entity in regard to the sale of shares to the petitioner therein - investments originating from Mauritius - Beneficial ownership of shares - Treaty Benefits under India-Mauritius DTAA - whether sale of shares was not covered by Article 13 (3A) of the DTAA ? - determination of shareholding pattern and the role of key individuals - as decided by HC [2024 (9) TMI 26 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the transaction was aimed at tax avoidance is rendered arbitrary and cannot be sustained. The transaction, in our considered opinion, stands duly grandfathered by virtue of Article 13 (3A) of the DTAA.Writ petitioners of the impugned transaction not being designed for avoidance of tax. The petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential reliefs.
HELD THAT:- The issues raised in this petition require thorough consideration.
In the meantime, the impugned judgment & order passed by the High Court shall remain stayed from its operation, implementation and execution.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1414
Inaction of Respondents in not passing any order on the Rectification Applications - Respondents have issued an intimation u/s 245 for adjusting the refund against the demand of other years for which Rectification Applications are pending since 2021 - HELD THAT:- Respondents to first adjudicate and pass orders on the Rectification Applications filed for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 to 2020-2021 and thereafter proceed further, if required for adjusting the refund of Assessment Year 2021-2022 against the refund in accordance with law.
As informed that for the Assessment Year 2021-2022, Respondent No. 1 has disposed of the Rectification Application filed by the Petitioner by order dated 26 November 2024. However, the said order is also impugned in the present proceeding. We do not wish to adjudicate upon the said order since there is an Appeal provided under Section 246A of the Act against the order rejecting the Rectification Application.
The Petitioner is at liberty to file an Appeal against the said order and if such an Appeal is filed within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of the present order then the Commissioner (Appeal) would adjudicate the same on its merits without going into the limitation since the Petitioner was bona fide pursuing the said matter before this Court in the present Petition.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1413
Denial of Exemption u/s 11 - activities of the appellant were more in the nature of business activities carried on with a profit motive - Whether the activities of the appellant qualify as "relief of the poor" u/s 2(15) ? - HELD THAT:- The payment of such amounts to the poor and marginal farmers, if proved, would have led the authorities below to conclude that the activities of the appellant were carried on with the object of providing relief of the poor. They would have arrived at such a conclusion by looking at the activities of the appellant company in a holistic manner and against the backdrop of its stated objects in its Memorandum of Association.
The impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal that upholds the finding of the authorities below is therefore set aside and the appeals allowed to the extent of holding that the activities of the appellant/assessee have to be seen as falling under the head of “relief of the poor” for the purposes of the definition of “charitable purpose” u/s 2 (15) and for the purposes of computation of income and grant of exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act.
That said, we do find force in the submission of Department that there was no enquiry by the authority below, with reference to the accounts and documents produced by the appellant/assessee, on the aspect of whether the appellant had in fact satisfied the requirement of application of income in terms of Section 11 for claiming the exemption.
We feel that the assessment of the appellant/company under the I.T. Act for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 would not be complete unless the above exercise is also completed by the Assessing Officer.
While allowing the I.T. Appeals therefore, by finding that the appellant would be entitled to the exemption u/s 11 as an entity providing relief of the poor, we remand the matter to the Assessing Authority to determine whether or not the appellant actually satisfied the requirement of application of income u/s 11 of the I.T. Act during the assessment years in question for the purposes of obtaining the benefit of exemption. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1412
Fixed Place Permanent Establishment [PE] as well as DAPE -Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - Attribution of profit can be made to the AE when it is renumerated at arm's length - HELD THAT:- While dealing with the principal question of a Fixed Place PE as well as DAPE, the Tribunal has taken note of the Transfer Pricing Analysis which was undertaken by the Transfer Pricing Officer [TPO] and has thus taken the view that since the income attributable to the PE had already been subjected to tax, no further exercise was liable to be undertaken.
The submission essentially proceeds on the basis that since all the functions performed and risks assumed by Adobe India had not formed subject matter of examination in the course of the Transfer Pricing Analysis, the mere attribution of profits to the PE would have not justified the Tribunal in proceeding to interfere with the views that were expressed by the AO as well as the CIT(A).
We, however, find that although it appears to have been urged before the Tribunal that Adobe India was performing functions which were “wider in scope” and also stretched to matters which had not formed subject matter of examination in the Transfer Pricing Report, the Tribunal on facts has found that the said conclusions were wholly unjustified and were merely assumptions made by the appellants and were not founded on any material or evidence which formed part of the record.
Double Irish model of Corporate Structuring and a perceived scheme of tax avoidance - Double Irish model which is spoken of by various authors essentially alludes to advantages that may be taken by certain entities of a “loophole” existing in the Irish law so as to escape taxation in that nation. We, however, fail to comprehend or appreciate how that principle could have had any relevance to income which was asserted by the appellants themselves to have arisen or accrued in India.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1411
TP adjustment - charging of commission for corporate guarantee at 0.5% - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in favour of revenue we set aside the Tribunal’s impugned order to the extent that it concerns a substantial question of law (a) and remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, given our above observations and the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sap Labs India (P.) Ltd. [2023 (4) TMI 859 - SUPREME COURT] as held that each case must be examined to determine whether the guidelines laid down in the Act and the Rules were followed by determining the arm’s length price. There can be no absolute proposition that the range of corporate guaranteed fees or determining the arm’s length price should follow a particular range or formula.
Addition of interest expenditure/s 36(1)(iii) - commercial expediency in advancing interest free loans to sister concern - HELD THAT:- We are satisfied that it must be decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, given the decision of South Indian Bank Limited [2021 (9) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT]
-
2025 (1) TMI 1410
Validity of assessment order issued u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B - violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner contends that the assessment was conducted without proper consideration of the evidence and that the video conferencing hearing was ineffective.
HELD THAT:- A perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the petitioner had been given a show cause notice, for which it had replied and a hearing through 'video conferencing' had also taken place.
Whether the 'video conferencing' was an empty formality? - As rightly pointed out by respondents, the petitioner in the affidavit had clearly averred that it and its authorized representative had appeared through 'video conferencing' and had explained in detail the way in which the loans were taken and repaid. This itself would mean that the said 'video conferencing' was not an empty formality.
When a show cause notice had been issued on certain allegations, it is the duty of the recipient of such show cause notice to assail the same by producing relevant and necessary documents.
In the present case, the petitioner had not produced such relevant and necessary documents. The petitioner cannot expect the first respondent to call upon the petitioner to produce further documents, as the first respondent will not be aware of what are the documents available with the petitioner to substantiate the same.
Hence, no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner proved. WP dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1409
Bogus purchases - AO has made the addition by stating that assessee had not produced delivery challan as to when stock is received - assessee also did not produce copy of bills and GST challan to show that purchases are genuine - HELD THAT:- AR had submitted that all details were given to AO and CIT(A). We find that assessee had submitted copy of invoice of M/s Om Jewellers, ledger account of Om Jewellers in the books of the assessee, GST portal showing the impugned transaction, B2B invoice list for the month of February, 2018 from GST portal to show that the purchase was in fact made by the assessee from M/s Om Jewellers.
The assessee has also submitted ledger account of M/s Om Jewellers where the impugned transaction is reflected.
Thus, assessee has given all the details which are needed to explain the genuineness of the purchase made from Om Jewellers. However, the AO has considered the transaction with same other entity, namely M/s Aum Chain & Jewellery for making the addition.
AR contended that assessee purchased the jewellery from M/s Om Jewellers and not from M/s Aum Chain and Jewellery. The explanation given by the assessee has not been controverted by the lower authorities and there is no corroborative evidence to support the case of revenue that assessee had made another purchase of equivalent value of jewellery from another penalty i.e., M/s Aum Chain & Jewellery. Hence, the addition is deleted. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1408
Levy of surcharge at the maximum marginal rate u/s 167B - rental income from house property earned by the assessee, an Association of Persons (AOP) - levy of surcharge was determined pursuant to intimations issued by the CPC, Bengaluru u/s 143(1) - CIT(A) upheld the CPC’s action concluding that Section 167B applies to the income of an AOP where the shares of members are indeterminate - whether the rental income from house property earned by the assessee is to be taxed under Section 26 in the hands of individual co-owners or at the Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR) u/s 167B?
HELD THAT:- As per the provisions of Section 167B of the Act, if even one member of the AOP is taxable at a rate higher than MMR, the entire income of the AOP will be taxed at MMR. Although the co-ownership agreement specifies determinate shares, the record does not conclusively establish the tax rates applicable to each co-owner. It is therefore necessary to verify the taxability of each co-owner to ensure that the correct rate of taxation is applied.
Co-ownership agreement, and judicial precedents, it is evident that Section 26 of the Act governs the taxation of the rental income from house property in this case.
In light of the provisions of Section 167B of the Act, it is essential to ascertain whether any member of the AOP is taxable at a rate higher than MMR. In the interest of justice and to ensure compliance with the Act, the orders of the CIT(A) for both A.Y. 2022-23 and A.Y. 2023-24 are set aside, and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for proper verification.
AO is directed to:
a) Verify the tax rates applicable to each co-owner based on their individual tax returns.
b) If none of the co-owners is taxable at a rate exceeding MMR, the income shall be taxed in the hands of the AOP at normal slab rates applicable to individuals under Section 167B(2) of the Act.
c) If any co-owner is taxable at a rate higher than MMR, the income of the AOP shall be taxed at MMR as per the provisions of Section 167B of the Act.
Appeals of the Assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1407
Validity of assessment made u/s 143(3) v/s 153C - assessee’s contention is that since the assessment was made pursuant to search and based on materials found in the course of search, the assessment in the case of the Assessee being the person other than the searched person should have been made u/s 153C of the Act instead of regular assessment u/s 143(3)
HELD THAT:- In this case undoubtedly the addition made in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) for the AY 2021-22 was based on the search and seizure operations conducted on Hans Group of cases on 06.01.2021, wherein the mobile phone of Shir Vaibhav Jain was seized and based on the watts app chats on 01.12.2020 in the mobile phone of Shri Vaibhav Jain, the addition came to be made while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act.
The contention of the assessee in this appeal was that when once the assessment of the Assessee was made based on the materials seized in the case of Hans Group, such assessment should have been made u/s 153C having recorded the satisfaction note u/s 153C of the Act and not u/s 143(3) as was done by the AO.
On perusal of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mukul Rani Thakur [2024 (11) TMI 1031 - ITAT DELHI] we observed that on identical facts and in same search of Hans Group on 06.01.2021 the AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) having recorded the satisfaction note u/s 153C for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2021-22.
Having regard to the first proviso to section 153C, AY 2023-24 relevant to the FY 2022-23 would be the year of search and therefore the Assessing Officer was required to complete the assessment for six assessment years prior to year of search AY 2023-24 u/s 153C for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23.
AO completed the assessment for AY 2021-22 u/s 143(3) which is not permissible under law. We hold that the regular assessment made u/s 143(3) of the Act despite recording of satisfaction note u/s 153C from Assessing Officer of searched person and also as the AO of the person other than the searched person, is not permissible in law. Thus, we hold that the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2021-22 is void ab initio and the same is hereby quashed. The additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1406
Denial of registration u/s.12A(1)(ac)(iii) AND u/s. 80G(5)(iii) - Whether assessee society was provided with adequate opportunity to present the requisite documents? - HELD THAT:- In case the failure of the assessee society for no justifiable reason to furnish the requisite details/documents that were called for by the CIT(Exemption) for processing its application for registration is condoned, then it would become a precedent for others to not participate before the CIT(Exemption) and furnish the requisite details/documents before him, and thereafter, use the Tribunal as a forum for seeking restoration of the matter and allowing of an another innings before the CIT(Exemption), which, we are afraid cannot be allowed. We, thus, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Exemption), Bhopal, uphold his order.
CIT(Exemption), Bhopal had afforded three opportunities to the assessee society to furnish the documents/details hereinabove it had failed to avail, therefore, we find no substance in the Ld.AR’s claim that the order of rejection of the assessee’s application u/s. 12AB of the Act had been passed without affording of an adequate opportunity to the assessee society, and, thus, reject the same. Decided against assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1405
Revision u/s 263 - bogus LTCG - Information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of penny scrip - AO vide order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B allowed the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 10(38) in respect of gains arising from the sale of shares and accepted the return of income filed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- Assessee in response to the notice provided a detailed explanation along with all the relevant documents regarding its transaction in shares of “Ojas Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.”. However, without addressing/dealing with any of the details filed by the assessee, PCIT came to the conclusion that the transaction by the assessee in shares of “Ojas Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.” is a sham transaction entered for earning bogus Long-Term Capital Gains. PCIT did not mention as to how the issue of earning bogus Long-Term Capital Gains is proved in the present case vis-à-vis the details filed by the assessee during the re-assessment proceedings and also produced before the learned PCIT.
It is pertinent to note that it is also not the claim of the learned PCIT that the details filed before the AO during the re-assessment proceedings were not sufficient to decide the issue of whether the Long-Term Capital Gains earned by the assessee are genuine. Thus, neither in the revisionary proceedings u/s 263 nor during the hearing before us it has been pointed out as to what inquiry was not conducted by the AO with regard to the issue of bogus Long- Term Capital Gains, which can lead to the conclusion that the assessment order is erroneous insofar it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Thus revision order passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1404
Non issue of notice u/s 143(2) - HELD THAT:- As held in the case of ‘ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon’ [2010 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] that the issue of notice u/s 143(2) is sine qua non to assume jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment in a case. If the said notice had been issued by the AO who did not have the jurisdiction over the assessee, then such notice is to be treated as non-est. The assessment carried out in such cases will be bad in law.
In this case, since the concerned AO who had pecuniary jurisdiction to frame the assessment did not issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, therefore, the assessment framed was bad in law - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1403
Cash deposited in bank account as unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A - AO rejecting the books of account, however, directed the AO to adopt the net profit rate at 1.33% i.e. average of 1.46% shown during last year and 1.2% shown during this year to the sales including the cash sales - HELD THAT:- Assessee has admittedly explained the nature and source of cash deposit which is out of cash sales and which has already been recorded in the books of account and the assessee has clearly explained the nature and source of such cash deposited in the bank account by producing the relevant details.
Since each and every cash sale is less than Rs. 2 lakh, the assessee is not required to obtain the PAN number and other details of the customers. Since the assessee in the instant case has given all the details including the details of purchases, sales and quantitative details of stock, etc. and the deposits in the bank accounts are out of cash sales in the month of April and May, 2019, therefore, the provisions of section 69A in our opinion are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the detailed reasoning given by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on this issue, we do not find any infirmity in his order -Aappeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1402
Denial of a reduced tax rate option u/s 115BAA - late submission of Form 10IC by the assessee - HELD THAT:- The company has selected the OPTION u/s 115BAA in return of income while calculating the tax as well as specified in clause 8(a) of Form 3CA which is clearly the beneficial one for the company. From tax calculated in the return and from clause 8(a)of Form 3CA, the intention and act of the assessee was very clear to opt new tax regime as per section 115BAA. There is no material objective to be achieved by the assessee in not e-filing papers before the due date of return of the same, once the intent was very well declared in Form 3CA.
We also find that, there has been substantial compliance of the requirement under Section 115BAA of the Act, as evident from the fact that while filing the returns, it was declared/stated by the assessee that the option to discharge the tax was exercised under Section 115BAA of the Act and taxes were in fact paid @ 22% without claiming deductions as contemplated u/s 115BAA of the Act.
Authorities below failed to appreciate that if the failure to consider the claim of option to discharge tax under Section 115BAA on the ground of failure on the fact of the petitioner to file Form 10-IC within the period stipulated u/s 115BAA would cause genuine hardship to the assessee.
Rejection of the petition u/s 119(2)(b) to permit the petitioner to file Form 10-IC in support of its exercise of option under Section 115BAA of the Act would cause genuine hardship and it is desirable and expedient to permit the petitioner to file Form 10-IC in support of its claim / option under Section 115BAA of the Act and deal with such claim on merits in accordance with law. The CBDT's Circulars extending the due dates for filing such forms in earlier years indicate a recognition of such procedural difficulties.
Thus, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is restored back to the file of AO with a direction to take on record the Form 10IC and consider the same in consonance with the CBDT Circular and the return of income filed by the assessee and after verifying the same, he will adjudicate the issue whether the assessee is entitled for tax rate as per Section 115BAA of the Act in Assessment Year 2020-21 or not. Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1401
Claim of the TCS credit - income of his minor child was clubbed with his own income - HELD THAT:- Since no other mechanism has been provided to allow such TCS credit in the Act till the said amendment which took effect only from 1st day of January, 2025, therefore, such claim of the assessee cannot be entertained.
In our opinion, since the income of the minor child was clubbed with the income of the assessee, the corresponding TCS collected in the hands of the minor also should be allowed and due credit should be given in the hands of the assessee.
Revenue cannot be allowed to retain the tax deducted at source or tax collected at source without credit being available to anybody. In our opinion, if the credit of tax is not allowed to the assessee, then credit of TCS cannot be taken by anybody.
Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill, 2024 regarding the credit of tax collected to be given to the persons other than the collectee is applicable from 1st day of January, 2025 and since so other mechanism has been provided to allow such TCS in the Act till the amendment which took place effective only from 1st day of January, 2025 and therefore, such claim of the assessee cannot be entertained is concerned, the same, in our opinion, cannot deprive the assessee from his legitimate claim of TDS / TCS, the income of which has already been offered to tax.
Therefore, such amendment in our opinion should be held as retrospective in nature and not to the detriment of the assessee against a legitimate claim.
We find in the case of Allied Motors (P) Ltd. [1997 (3) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT] has held that a proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to made the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the section and is required to be read into the section to give the section a reasonable interpretation, requires to be treated as retrospective in operation so that a reasonable interpretation can be given to the section as a whole. It has further been held that “it is well settled that if a statute curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended. In fact the amendment would not serve its object in such a situation unless it is construed as retrospective”.
We hold that depriving the assessee of due credit for TCS in the hands of the minor child whose income has already been clubbed in the hands of the assessee will cause undue hardship to the assessee for non-provision of any other mechanism by the Board.
We, therefore, set aside the order of the Addl./JCIT(A) and direct the AO to give due credit of TDS / TCS of the minor child in the hands of the assessee. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1400
Limited Scrutiny Assessment - Converting of a limited scrutiny case to an unlimited scrutiny case - Whether AO exceeded jurisdiction by converting a limited scrutiny case into a complete scrutiny case without obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority?
HELD THAT:- As regards, first reason given selecting the case for scrutiny that the assessee had reported high income in the return, but not submitted information in the Schedule pertaining to the Assets and Liabilities, in the course of assessee admits that due to high income reported in the return, the assessee was required to submit assets and liabilities schedule, but the assessee did not submit the same.
It is not being disputed on behalf of the assessee that such information of assets and liabilities is required to be furnished where total income of the assessee exceeds of Rs. 50, 00,000/-. Such information requires detailed enquiry.
In view of this first reason, the AO was competent to scrutinize the case not by way of limited scrutiny, but as a complete scrutiny case.
Second reason given in selecting the case for scrutiny, it was found that the assessee had lent huge sum by way of loans as per Form 3CD of debtors, in comparison to the gross total income shown in ITR. Accordingly, when genuineness of loan transactions and sources of loan was to be verified, it cannot be said that the case was selected for limited scrutiny.
Third reason in selecting the case for scrutiny is concerned, as per tax audit report, substantial amount of loans was squared up by the assessee during the year under consideration. Accordingly, genuineness of the transactions, sources of unsecured loan, identity as well as creditworthiness of the lenders were to be verified. It was also required to be verified whether the loan amounts had been actually and genuinely returned to any such creditors and also that the provisions of Section 269SS were followed, while returning the said amount.
CIT(A), NFAC fell in error in observing that the AO had passed the assessment order without following procedure i.e. without seeking approval of the competent authority, as per CBDT Circular dated 28.11.2018, which contains directions for converting of a limited scrutiny case to an unlimited scrutiny case.
Having regard to the reasons recorded for selecting the case for scrutiny, it cannot be said to be a case selected for “limited scrutiny” or that the AO had expanded his jurisdiction. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1399
Unexplained cash found at the residential premises during the course of search - assessee had declared Rs. 10 lacs in M/s Avinash Agro Pvt. Ltd. - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that if explanation is taken into consideration, based on cumulative circumstances, namely; (1) Rs. 10 lacs was declared to cover up such type of issues in the case of M/s Avinash Agro Pvt. Ltd.; (b) Past savings of the family members, and (c) Gift received from the brothers, then it would be established that source of cash is available with the assessee. It is difficult to establish a cash available in the family with a mathematic precision.
It is to be appreciated on the normal human behaviour available in the family and if all the family members are assessable to tax, then possibility of their savings and availability of Rs. 10 lacs could never be denied. Therefore, learned Revenue Officers have erred in not appreciating the facts and circumstances in right perspective and confirming the addition of Rs. 6 lacs. We allow this appeal and delete the addition of Rs. 6 lacs. Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1398
CPC unilaterally reducing the TDS credit granted to the assessee - CPC had previously granted full TDS credit in three separate rectification orders but unilateral reduction in TDS credit in the subsequent order - AR submitted that this rectification order has been passed by the CPC, without giving an opportunity to the assessee by way of issuance of any notice or otherwise
HELD THAT:- As submitted by the Ld.AR, the CPC has given full credit of TDS in three of its orders. However, in the last order passed u/s. 154 of the Act, the TDS amount has been reduced, which resulted in raising of a demand. It is the submission of the assessee that the CPC has not issued any show cause notice to the assessee before reducing the amount of TDS credit. The said action of the CPC is not in accordance with the provisions of sec.154 of the Act and it results in violation of principle of natural justice also.
Accordingly, we are of the view that the CPC was not justified in reducing the TDS credit and raising a demand upon the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and direct the AO/CPC to allow the full credit of TDS to the assessee and accordingly nullify the corresponding demand raised. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
............
|
9911796707
