|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1716 Records
-
2020 (2) TMI 1576 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Interest on the belated payment of taxes - Section 50 of the CGST Act - gross tax liability or net tax liability after the adjustment of the input tax liability - HELD THAT:- Interim relief is granted.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1575 - ITAT DELHI
Withdrawal of appeal - HELD THAT:- None is present on behalf of the assessee. However, an application on behalf of the assessee dated 27.01.2020 is placed on record, stating that the assessee does not wish to press this appeal and seeks permission to withdraw the same. The ld. DR reports no objection on this request of the assessee.
Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed as withdrawn - In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1574 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Area Based Exemption - exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. - absolute or conditional in nature - lapse of credit lying unutilised - unutilized Cenvat credit lying in balance related to capital goods and input service, can be demanded or not - HELD THAT:- Once the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that refund which was granted to the respondent-assessee has become final in view of Rule 6(6) of the Rules, 2004, lapsing of Cenvat credit provided under Rule 11(3) related to goods already exported would not be applicable. Therefore, invocation of Rule 11(3) of the Rules, 2004 is rightly held to be not applicable in the facts of the case.
The questions of law proposed by Revenue cannot be termed as substantial questions of law - Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1573 - DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, GURGRAM
Seeking grant of Bail - Evasion of CGST duty - recovery and seizure of a large number of incriminating documents indicating evasion of CGST duty - group of traders fabricating heavy sale and purchase transactions among themselves - HELD THAT:- Despite the grant of opportunity to the learned Senior Special Public Prosecutor to let this Court know how the role of petitioner herein was graver than that of principal accused Vikas Goel, who has already been granted the concession of bail, it could not be explained away.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case including the ground of parity and trial not likely to be concluded in near future and accused having already spent a considerable duration in judicial custody, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of concession of regular bail - The application is allowed and petitioner-accused Vinod Kumar Agarwal is admitted to bail subject to furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1572 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH
Transfer of an amount (Corporate Debtor funds) within two years before commencement of CIRP - professional fee paid to R1 to organise a loan of ₹ 20 Crore for the business needs of the Corporate Debtor or not - fraudulent intent present or not - burden to prove - HELD THAT:- The money was transferred from the Corporate Debtor to R1. From the records of the corporate debtor there is no material to say that these monies were transferred as commission towards the consultancy services rendered by R1. There are no supporting entries from the books of the Corporate Debtor to prove that this money was paid to R1 towards business purpose. As to the monies shown as paid to R1 by the Corporate Debtor, if at all, monies were paid in relation to the services rendered by R1, the Corporate Debtor should have deducted TDS from those amounts but no information or details reflecting TDS was deducted from the monies paid by the Corporate Debtor to R1 - Normally when an agreement is entered into, both the parties enter into agreements signed by them on behalf of themselves or on behalf of Companies or Partnerships, as the case may be.
A case falls within the ambit of Sec. 43 of the Code when repayment was made to the Creditor within the look back period for putting such creditor in a beneficial position than it would have been in the event of distribution of assets made in accordance with Section 53 of the Code - RP says that R1 has not provided any consultancy services to the Corporate Debtor, it was only payments made to R1 to cause unlawful gain to R1 based on sham transactions causing loss to other Creditors. When material is absent to prove that the transaction is genuine, the Respondents shall prove that transaction is not fictitious and they must prove that R1 is entitled for commission and that entitlement was cleared by the Corporate Debtor.
In this case, no material is there to prove that R1 acted as commission agent to facilitate the Corporate Debtor to secure loan from SREI and also to secure Purchase Order from Regen. As long as this aspect is not proved, it cannot be said that, the relation in between the Corporate Debtor and R1 is debtor and creditor relationship. If any money has been shown as siphoned from the Corporate Debtor Accounts, as to those monies, if the Corporate Debtor failed to show it as payment to a Creditor, then such payment has to be considered as a fraudulent transaction falling within the ambit of Section 66 of the Code - related party concept comes into existence to look into, when transaction taken place in the period beyond one year look back period and before lapse of two year look back period. As to section 66, look back period and relative or related party concepts will not come into picture, this Bench need not ascertain whether it is in compliance of Section 43 elements. In companies, management is answerable to every transaction, it has to explain and prove every transaction is based on business needs and part of business, mere oral saying will not make any transaction genuine unless supported by material proof, which normally happens in every transaction. In this case, it is shorn of such supporting material.
As to the party not in the management of the Corporate Debtor, that is R2, though he is not part of the management of the Corporate Debtor, he knows that R1 has no claim against the Corporate Debtor, therefore he ought to have refunded it to the Corporate Debtor as soon as it came to the account of R1. Had it been genuine transaction, it must have reflected tax payments and tax deductions and R1 must have disclosed that it has been providing similar services to others, but no such material placed - for R3 having not stated that he is not the cause for release of the funds from the Corporate Debtor to R1 and R1 having not proved that this money has come to his partnership firm towards commission, it is held that the impugned transfer of the Corporate Debtor funds to R1 is for fraudulent purpose.
R2 and R3 jointly and severally are directed to contribute ₹ 65 lac to the Corporate Debtor within fifteen days from hereof - application allowed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1571 - ITAT COCHIN
Depreciation claim on vehicles to 15% instead of 30% claimed by the assessee - higher rate of deprecation - case of assessee being engaged in the business of contract - Whether contract entered between the assessee and the oil companies is not a case of hiring motor vehicles simplicitor? - HELD THAT:- There was a clear finding to the effect that effective control and possession of the aircraft/vehicles was retained by the persons making the payments. In the instant case, from the reading of the terms of contract, it is clear that this is not a case of hiring of motor vehicles simplicitor. Unless the assessee is engaged in the business of hiring of motor vehicles simplicitor, she will not be entitled to the claim of higher rate of depreciation of 30%. In this case, the assessee is engaged in contract business and is not in the business of letting vehicles on hire simplicitor. Hence the assessee is not entitled to the claim of higher rate of depreciation. - Decided against assessee.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1570 - SUPREME COURT
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - main allegation in the FIR was with regard to misuse of official position of the accused and to hatch criminal conspiracy to cause loss of revenue to the State Exchequer - criminal breach of trust - High court finds that the order passed by the court below of taking cognizance dated 21.01.2019 does not require any interference by this court.
HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere in these matters. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1569 - SUPREME COURT
Cognizance in respect of offences punishable under Sections 3&4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - order issuing arrest warrants to secure presence of the accused - HELD THAT:- The order under appeal rejecting the revision applications challenging the order taking cognizance is confirmed.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1568 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH
Requirement of additional affidavit - HELD THAT:- The professional representing the petitioner mentions that certain amendment is required in the petition also certain other documents is also to be attached with the petition - the Bench directs that the same should be filed by the way of an additional affidavit.
The matter is adjourned to 21.02.2020.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1567 - ITAT DELHI
TP Adjustment - ALP of intra group services received by one of the associated enterprises - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2018 (5) TMI 1972 - ITAT DELHI] It is not for the revenue authorities to dictate to the assessee as to how he should conduct his business and it is not for them to tell the assessee as to what expenditure the assessee can incur. The question whether decision was commercially sound or not is not relevant.It is incorrect to say that the assessee has not provided appropriate/logical allocation of cost to ATK affiliates for management support and cost allocated to ATK India - Considering the cost allocation chart exhibited elsewhere supported by evidences placed as exhibits in the paper book, we do not find any merit in the transfer pricing adjustments made by DRP/TP/Assessing Officer on this count and the same is directed to be deleted.
Adjustment of interest on inter-company credit - assessee has received interest on loan advanced to AE named as A.T. Kearney Finance Ltd. and used CUP method for the interest transactions on loan - TPO rejected the ALP of the assessee and instead required to charge interest @ 14.88% (being SBI PLR + 300 basis points) - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2018 (5) TMI 1972 - ITAT DELHI] since the assessee has received interest from its AE in France, applying prime lending rate of RBI is not proper In any case, since the assessee is receiving interest on FD @ 7.56%, interest received from AE @ 8.46% can be considered at ALP. Therefore, no TP adjustment is called for.
Comparable selection - Companies as Government of India Undertakings - HELD THAT:- WAPCO Ltd and Antrix Corporation Ltd. are Government of India Undertakings, we hold that these two companies cannot be held as comparable with the assessee company and are to be rejected. So far as Edserv Softsystems Ltd. is concerned, it is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the TPO, in the succeeding years has not considered this company as a functionally comparable company and has agreed with the assessee in considering the company as a functionally non-comparable. We, therefore, deem it proper to restore this issue to the file of the AO/TPO with a direction to verify the analysis done by them in subsequent years and find out as to whether this company is functionally similar or dissimilar to that of the assessee company and decide the issue as per fact and law.
Interest on outstanding receivables - outstanding receivables were re-characterized as unsecured loan, thus applying the interest rate of 15.77% (i.e., SBI PLR + 300 basis points), the TPO proposed an upward adjustment on the receivables - CIT-A directed that the interest be computed @ 14.77% being SBI PLR + 300 basis points - HELD THAT:- We find the issue stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd . [2017 (4) TMI 1254 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as held The conclusion in the explanation to section 92B of the Act of the expiration receivables does not mean that de hors the context every item of receivables appearing in the accounts of an entity, which may have dealings with the foreign AEs would be characterised as an international transaction. There may be a delay in collection of monies for supplies made, even beyond the agreed limit, due to a variety of facts which will have to be investigated on a case to case basis. Importantly, the impact this would have on the working capital of the assessee will have to be studied. In other words, there has to be a proper enquiry by the TPO by analysing the statistics over a period of time to discern a pattern which would indicate that vis-a-vis the receivables for the supplies made to an 80AE, the arrangement reflects an international transaction intended to benefit the AE in some way. - We direct the AO/TPO to delete the addition on account of interest outstanding receivables.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1566 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH
Restraint on respondent from disturbing the possession of the RP in properties mentioned in MOU - assignment of development rights of the properties to the corporate debtor - HELD THAT:- Till admission of the corporate debtor in CIRP, MOU dated 24.01.2008 was not cancelled /revoked by the respondents. Hence, the corporate debtor remained in possession of the properties for the purpose of their development. Upon corporate debtor's admission in CIRP, RP came in possession therein by virtue of statutory provisions under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Hence, respondents cannot disturb / obstruct RP's possession in those properties.
Corporate Debtor is having development rights of the properties. It is intangible assets of the corporate debtor. RP holds same development rights relating to those properties. He has to proceed with the CIRP of the corporate debtor and invite resolution plan on the basis of those rights. The respondents cannot obstruct his possession and activities in any manner.
The respondents (or any other person acting through them) shall not obstruct RP's possession and his activities relating to CIRP of the corporate debtor, until further orders, failing which the local police are directed to give every assistance to the RP for completion of CIRP of the corporate debtor effectively - Application disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1565 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI BENCH
Fabrication of photocopy of a document purported to be an MoU, during the pendency of the petition - invocation of provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- This Bench is of the opinion that provisions of section 340 would not apply to the facts of this case, as this MoU did not form the basis of any adjudication. To initiate prosecution, it is essential that the decision is based on a fabricated document and the Court having relied upon the same has arrived at an erroneous conclusion. Since the alleged fabricated MoU was not a basis of adjudication, no enquiry is required under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
The CA under 340 Cr.P.C. is dismissed - Be listed before the Id. Registrar on 25th February, 2020 for enquiring whether the photocopy of the MoU given to the IO is different from the one filed by the Petitioner.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1564 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Application for ROM - Benefit of N/N. 94/96-Cus - DEEC Scheme - goods reimported for reprocessing/reconditioning, claiming Notification No.158/95-Cus - As the subject goods could not be re-exported within the period of six months prescribed in the said notification, they sought extension for re-export - HELD THAT:- ROM dismissed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1563 - ITAT BANGALORE
TP Adjustment - margin adopted for UK transactions and non-UK transactions - MAP proceedings of mark up - contention of the learned Authorized Representative that there is no finding by the CIT(Appeals) and non-adjudication of Map percentage on other entities - HELD THAT:- We restore the disputed issue to the file of CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication and findings on the margin adopted for UK transactions and non-UK transactions and pass a speaking order, and the assessee should be allowed adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in early disposal of appeal and allow the grounds of appeal of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1562 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI
Allowance of same claim twice - duplicity of claims - application dismissed on the ground that since claim lodged by the Financial Creditor before Resolution Professional in CIRP against the Principal Borrower has already been collated and admitted, it is not permissible to allow the same claim to be again - HELD THAT:- Once the Financial Creditor's claim has been collated and admitted by the IRP in its entirety, invoking of jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority at its instance for triggering a fresh Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Guarantor would amount to duplicity of claims being pressed. The fact that the Resolution Plan is yet to be approved by the Adjudicating Authority and the Financial Creditor may be faced with the prospect of taking a haircut is no ground to trigger a fresh resolution process against the Corporate Guarantor.
Assuming but not holding that the Corporate Guarantors liability is coextensive with that of the Principal Borrower in the instant case with no proof of record that there is no contract to the contrary within the meaning of Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act and there has been no subsequent variance in terms of contract between the Financial Creditor and the Principal Borrower, apprehension of Financial Creditor that in the resolution process initiated against the Principal Borrower, which is still underway, its total claim will not be satisfied has to be termed as speculative and a figment of imagination. This being a second application for same set of claim and arising out of the same default cannot be admitted against the 'Corporate Guarantor' while CIRP initiated against the 'Principal Borrower' is still subsisting.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1561 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCH
Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - Section 33(1)(a) of I&B Code - HELD THAT:- Since, there was no resolution of the stressed assets of the Corporate Debtor under consideration for the approval of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 of the Code and since the Resolution Professional prays for passing an order of liquidation these applications require no consideration. It is also significant to note that 330 days of CIRP period, been expired on 29/01/2020. Therefore, all these applications can be disposed of with a liberty to submits their respective claim to the liquidator appointed in the case in hand. With the above said observations, all these applications are to be disposed of.
Thus, no resolution plan is forthcoming to resolve the stressed assets of the Corporate Debtor there is no other alternative than to pass an order of liquidation requiring the Corporate Debtor to be liquidated in the manner as laid down in Chapter 3 read with Section 33(1)(a) of the Code. Mr.Kannan Tiruvengadam has given written consent to continue as the Liquidator and hence he is to be appointed as the Liquidator.
The Corporate Debtor has been ordered to be liquidated - Application allowed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1560 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Provisional release of seized goods on execution of a bank guarantee for the full seizure value and a security deposit - case of appellant is that seizure value taken by the Customs is much higher than the prevailing market value - HELD THAT:- After hearing both sides and considering the totality of facts of the case, the interests of justice would be met if the appellant gives a bond for the entire seizure value of the goods and makes a Security Deposit of ₹ 15.00 Lakhs in each of these cases. On execution of bonds and payment of security deposits, the seized goods shall be provisionally released.
Petition disposed off.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1559 - SC ORDER
Disallowance of notional loss on account of foreign exchange fluctuation loss - claim on account of Mark to Market basis - HELD THAT:- The judgment of the High Court in [2018 (2) TMI 1789 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has attained finality as a result of the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4 v Suzlon Energy Limited [2020 (1) TMI 1505 - SC ORDER].
Consequently, in view of the above position and since the Special Leave Petition against the judgment which has been relied upon has been dismissed by this Court, we dismiss the Special Leave Petition on that ground.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1558 - ITAT DELHI
Deduction on provision for bad and doubtful debts u/s 36(1)(viia) - claim of deduction being 10% of Incremental Advances of rural branches and 7.5% of income was claimed for provision for doubtful debt - only reason for which the claim of the assessee is disallowed is because assessee has not made any provision in the books of accounts - HELD THAT:- CIT (Appeals) has failed to consider the fact that in the revised profit and loss account such claim was already made. Therefore, it is required to be considered by the lower authorities that when assessee has submitted the revised annual accounts which are duly approved by the AGM whether the assessee has satisfied the requirement of the provisions of Section 36(1)(viia) - As apparent from the record that annual accounts were revised on 26.02.2016, whereas the order was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 17.03.2016. Therefore, such accounts naturally could not have been before the Assessing Officer. CIT (Appeals) also did not consider the fact that whether such a revision of accounts is valid or not. In view of this we set aside the whole issue as per ground No. 1 of the appeal back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine whether the assessee has made the provision correctly or not.
TDS u/s 194A - Addition on interest paid on FDRs - assessee argued non examining Form No. 15G and 15H - assessee submitted that no tax is required to be deducted on fixed deposits made by agriculturists - HELD THAT:- As apparent from the orders that assessee did file Form No. 15G and 15H before the Assessing Officer though the same might not have been filed before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Muzaffar Nagar or might have been filed late - assessee has also stated that most of the fixed depositors are agriculturists and are having income below the taxable limit. Merely because the assessee did not file the requisite form before the learned CIT, Muzaffar Nagar, in time, it cannot be said that assessee has failed to deduct tax at source on such interest payment - without examining those Form No. 15G and 15H the Assessing Officer also could not have held that the assessee should have deducted tax at source on interest paid to such persons who have furnished Form No. 15H and 15G to the assessee. Without examining the facts, no disallowance can be made in the hands of the assessee. Furthermore the learned CIT (Appeals) also did not carry out such an exercise - we set asdide this ground of appeal that to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to the assessee to submit such Form No. 15H and 15G and prove before the Assessing Officer that no tax was required to be deducted on such sum. Ground allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2020 (2) TMI 1557 - ITAT CHENNAI
Validity of order u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) as barred by limitation - treating the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for non deduction of tax at source - payments made towards purchase of software treating the same as royalty - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute in the instant case that payment for purchase of software was made by the assessee during the financial year 2009-10 relevant to A.Y 2010-11. Hence, six years from the end of the financial year would expire on 31-03-2016, which would be the last date for framing the assessment u/s. 201(1) of the Act in terms of pre-amended provisions of s. 201(3)(ii) - This section was later amended w.e.f 01-10-2014 substituting six years with seven years - CIT(A) simply applied the amended provisions for the A.Y 2010-11 ignoring the fact that the said amendment is applicable only w.e.f 01-10 2014 - Order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act on 31-03-2017 is barred by limitation and hence, the same is hereby quashed. - Decided against revenue.
............
|
