|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1657 Records
-
2024 (10) TMI 1497
Levy of GST on seigniorage fee and turnover from quarrying - HELD THAT:- Division Bench Judgment in a batch of cases where the lead case is TVL. A. VENKATACHALAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that 'In the cases, where the challenge is made to the show cause notices, the writ petitioners shall submit their objections / representations within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'
In view of the said judgment, this petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms insofar as it relates to the issue of seigniorage fee. Consequently, the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation with in a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The issue relating to GST on turnover from quarrying shall be proceeded with by both parties in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1496
Challenge to SCN calling upon the petitioner to show cause with regard to GST liability under applicable GST laws in respect of both seigniorage fee and turnover from sale of quarried minerals - HELD THAT:- Division Bench Judgment in a batch of cases where the lead case is TVL. A. VENKATACHALAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'it is made clear that there shall be no recovery of GST on royalty until the Nine Judge Constitution Bench takes a decision.'
This petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms as regards the imposition of GST on seigniorage fee. With regard to GST on turnover, the parties shall proceed further in accordance with law.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1495
Demand against the petitioner - petitioner submits that during the time when the subject SCN were issued, the registration of the petitioner stood cancelled retrospectively and as such petitioner could not access the GST portal and it is only after the cancellation has been made prospective from the date of SCN, the petitioner has been able to access the portal - HELD THAT:- Since petitioner was unable to upload the reply to the said Show Cause Notices, it is felt that an opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to respond to the Show Cause Notices and Show Cause Notices should be re-adjudicated. Accordingly, impugned orders both dated 13.12.2023 are set aside. The proceedings are restored on the record of the Proper Officer.
Petitioner shall now upload a reply to the Show Cause Notices dated 18.09.2023 and 29.09.2023 within a period of one week from today. Thereafter the Proper Officer shall adjudicate the Show Cause Notices in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1494
Condonation of delay in filing the revocation application - compliance with all the requirements of paying the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due - HELD THAT:- The delay in Petitioner’s invoking the proviso to Rule 23 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules (OGST Rules) is condoned and it is directed that subject to the Petitioner depositing all the taxes, interest, late fee, penalty etc. due and complying with other formalities, the Petitioner’s application for revocation will be considered in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1493
Levy of GST on mining lease amounts paid by the petitioner to the Government - applicability of N/N. 13/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) - HELD THAT:- Division Bench Judgment in a batch of cases where the lead case is A.Venkatachalam v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Palladam, in W.P.No.30974 of 2022 [2024 (2) TMI 488 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that that 'In the cases, where the challenge is made to the show cause notices, the writ petitioners shall submit their objections / representations within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.'
In view of the said judgment, this petition is liable to be disposed of on the same terms. Consequently, in this case, the petitioner is permitted to submit his reply to the intimation with in a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1492
Cancellation of sale order - forefeiture of security deposit - petitioner’s firm is debarred from participating in any online Forward Auction conducted by RSP for a period of six months - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that the black listing period has already been over, but there is forfeiture of Security Deposit as well as Performance Guarantee made by the petitioner, which has been done without complying the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
In M/S KULJA INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS CHIEF GEN. MANAGER WT. PROJ. BSNL & OTHERS [2013 (10) TMI 733 - SUPREME COURT], the apex Court held, if State or its instrumentality takes decision on blacklisting then such decision is subject to judicial review on grounds of principles of natural justice, doctrine of proportionality, arbitrariness and discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
This Court is of the opinion that the order dated 26.06.2023 under Annexure-22 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1491
Seeking to quash the order passed without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner and an ex-parte order has been passed - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Considering the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, but, however without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, since the State Tax officer while passing the order dated 26.04.2023 has not been given opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, the said order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the order dated 26.04.2023 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed.
Therefore, this Court remits back to the very same authority to rehear the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner taking into consideration the ratio decided by this Court in KHANI KHYATIGRASTA GRAMYA COMMITTEE VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX & GST AND ANOTHER [2023 (11) TMI 1220 - ORISSA HIGH COURT].
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1490
Challenge to corrigendum issued by opposite party no.3 - reimbursement of additional tax which has already been deducted from its running bills and to be deducted from final bills after coming into force of the Goods and Service tax, as per the claim of the petitioner and in view of the office memorandum - HED THAT:- This Court finds that pay ability of GST amount is under consideration, which emanates from the terms and conditions of the contract floated in the tender documents and subsequently corrigendum issued by the authority. Thereby, any dispute with regard to payment of tax, which forms part of the tender documents, can only be resolved as per the terms and conditions prescribed in the tender documents. Since there is disputed questions of fact with regard to payment of GST amount, the same can be resolved by the competent forum in terms of the DTCN/agreement executed between the parties and, as such, this Court is not inclined entertain this writ petition. However, the petitioner is permitted to approach the appropriate forum in terms of the DTCN/agreement, which is applicable to it for realization of GST amount, pursuant to the tender call notice issued by the authority under Annexure-1 and corrigendum under Annexure-5.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1489
Taxability of Vouchers themselves, or the act of supplying them - GST rate of tax and the value of supply at which this would be taxable - Appellant is not the issuer of the voucher, but is the third party who buys and sells the vouchers.
What is a Voucher? - HELD THAT:- Section 2 (118) of GST Act defines: "voucher" means an instrument where there is an obligation to accept it as consideration or part consideration for a supply of goods or services or both and where the goods or services or both to be supplied or the identities of their potential suppliers are either indicated on the instrument itself or in related documentation, including the terms and conditions of use of such instrument.
Thus, as per GST laws, a voucher is an instrument that entitles the holder to receive goods or services or a discount on goods or services upon redemption. Vouchers are instruments representing value to facilitate a supply. Vouchers include gift cards, discount coupons, prepaid instruments, and similar items.
Is Voucher goods or service? - In the instant case the Appellant purchases the vouchers by paying a consideration to the issuer. The vouchers are also sold to the clients of the Appellant for a consideration. The vouchers have both a value and an ownership, which is transferred by the issuer of these vouchers to the appellant, and then to the ultimate beneficiary who redeems the voucher. The vouchers qualify to be considered as movable property and the "goods".
Whether the vouchers are in the nature of actionable claims? - Actionable claim qualifies as 'goods'. Actionable claim is defined to have the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Thus, actionable claim is a claim to an unsecured debt or a claim to any beneficial interest in movable property that is not in the possession of the claimant. Transactions/activities in actionable claims are kept outside the ambit of GST, except for the following claims: betting, casinos, gambling, horse racing, lottery and online money gaming.
Actionable claims are considered "goods" under the CGST Act but have some special rules. They are only taxed when transferred, sold, or given away for a price. This means that GST is not charged on the debt itself but only on the supply of the right to recover the debt. This is because actionable claims are neither a supply of goods nor services as per Schedule III of the CGST Act. GST liability arises when the claim is assigned, sold, or disposed of for consideration. In case of Vouchers, it has already been observed that Voucher by itself is a movable property, and hence constitutes goods. Since the Voucher is in the possession of the claimant at the time of claim, hence it cannot be considered as actionable claim.
Here the appellant is involved in trading of vouchers for a consideration in the course of furtherance of business. Though profit motive is not a requisite for the term supply, yet it is a fact that the Appellant is selling these vouchers at a profit. Thus, the impugned transaction amounts to supply of goods in terms of Section 7(1) (a) of the CGST Act 2017.
Appellant bought a gift card worth Rs. 1000/- from XYZ Company at a discount of 3% - If the coupons/vouchers represent a right to receive goods or services at a future date, and the trading activity involves the transfer of these rights without any physical goods being exchanged, it has to be considered a service since as per the GST law, the activity of providing or transferring a right to use goods or services is service. Since coupons/vouchers are essentially instruments granting such a right, trading in them falls under the service category.
For an intermediary who arranges the distribution or sale of discount vouchers and earns a commission (in the form of discount in the instant case), the GST liability is determined based on the nature of the service provided-facilitating the distribution of vouchers and earning a commission fee/discount.
In the instant case the appellant is engaged in trading of Vouchers/coupons and getting commission in the form of discount, on such services which are taxable. Thus, trading in Vouchers/coupons, being a service, is the taxable event where the time of supply is when the Vouchers/coupons are traded or sold. The value of service shall be the margin between the buying and selling price of the coupons.
Order:
(i) We set aside the impugned ruling given vide UP ADRG - 43/2024 dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Authority for Advance Ruling against the Appellant.
(ii) The Supply of Gift cards/ Vouchers/ pre-paid Vouchers are taxable as supply of goods and the time of supply shall be decided as per Section 12 (4) of the CGST Act, 2017.
(iii) We hold that GST is applicable on the commission/discount earned in the trading of Vouchers/Coupons by the appellant and the time of supply will be the time when the Vouchers/Coupons are traded or sold. The value of service shall be the margin between the buying and selling price of the Vouchers/Coupons.
The Ruling given hereinabove applies to the unique facts and circumstances of the appellants' matter in appeal and is based upon the submissions and evidences made available in this regard.
This ruling is valid only within the jurisdiction of Authority for Advance Ruling, Uttar Pradesh in terms of the provisions of The Central Goods and Services Tax act, 2017 and Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1488
Penalty imposed u/s 270A when the rectification application itself was pending - while computing the tax liability of the petitioner, the AO did not give credit of the TDS and charged interest for alleged non-payment of taxes - case of the petitioner is that since non-grant of the TDS was a “mistake apparent on a face of the record”, the petitioner made an application under Section 154 seeking correction of this apparent mistake - due to Technical difficulties delayed the uploading of the application, but it was eventually filed on 27 April 2022
HELD THAT:- The petitioner would be correct in his contention that in view of the subsequent developments and in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, a rectification order was passed. Also the demand raised under the rectification order, which was for payment of tax of Rs. 303/- was complied by the petitioner.
In this view of the matter, the penalty proceedings are also rendered inconsequential as the very foundation of such penalty proceedings stood extinguished in view of rectification order being passed. Admittedly, the demand and penalty proceedings under the Assessment Order dated 30 March 2022 would lose their sanctity, in view of the rectification order dated 3 January 2023, as necessarily, the assessment order has merged into the rectification order dated 3 January 2023.
In view of the clear position which was brought about from the compliance of the rectification order 3 January 2023, the application of the petitioner under Section 270AA of the Act although was filed on 7 January 2023, need not be taken forward. This for the reason that in view of the order dated 3 January 2023, passed on the rectification application of the petitioner, the issue in regard to the demands as also the penalty or any other issue which would possibly arise under the Assessment Order dated 30 March 2022, which was apparently held to be not correct, was accordingly interfered in the rectification proceedings. Thus, the assessment order as originally passed cannot continue to prejudice the petitioner for any actions to be taken thereunder. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are inclined to allow the petition. The order passed u/s 270A is quashed and set aside.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1487
Penalty u/s 270AA - assessee’s case was one of “under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting” - HELD THAT:- The controversy relates to the income and expenditure booked on account of interest accrued and payable. The petitioner had availed certain interest-bearing loans, and at the same time, had also advanced unsecured loans.
AO found that the interest payable in respect of certain loans advanced by the assessee was higher than the interest at which the funds were arranged. For the aforesaid reason, the assessee had made an addition being on account of the negative spread of interest.
Prima facie, this case would not be one of mis-reporting as the facts on the basis of which additions have been made appear to be disclosed by the assessee.
AO had issued the Show Cause Notice dated 17.09.2024 to the assessee calling upon him to show cause as to why his application for immunity from imposition of the penalty not be rejected on the ground that the petitioner’s case was of under reporting of income on account of mis-reporting. The petitioner claims that he had attempted to seek an adjournment online, however, he faced with certain technical difficulties and was not able to do so.
As noted that consequently, the impugned order has been passed without considering the contentions of the petitioner, as sought to be advanced before this Court.
Revenue fairly states that in the given circumstances, the matter may be remanded to the AO to consider the request of the petitioner for immunity from imposition of the penalty u/s 270AA afresh. This course commends to this Court.
We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order passed by the AO u/s 270AA of the Act and remand the matter to the AO to consider afresh.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1486
Jurisdiction of Assessment Unit, Income Tax to impose penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) - whether Petitioner has concealed its income? - TP adjustment in respect of payment of royalty - payment of management fees afresh in the light of the compliance report, modified income-tax return, and the APA.
HELD THAT:- We find substance in the contention of the Petitioner that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Respondents have no jurisdiction to initiate the impugned penalty proceedings and more particularly considering the fact that although the final Assessment Order was passed on 30 August 2018 for the Assessment Year 2013-2014, the Petitioner, on the next day, had filed the modified return of income, which was within the prescribed period of limitation from the date of the APA, as permissible in law, and therefore there could not have been any event of concealment of income by the Petitioner. Let the Respondents respond to this Petition by filing a Reply Affidavit on such contentions raised by the Petitioner. The same shall be served on the Petitioner well in advance.
Stand over to 26 November 2024. Till the adjourned date of hearing, order passed under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, shall remain stayed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1485
Notice u/s 143(2) - Jurisdiction of AO to issue notices - Authority to issue notices u/s 143(2) - notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act has been issued by the ACIT/ DCIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(1)(1), Delhi
HELD THAT:- A plain reading of Section 143 (2) of the Act clearly indicates that either of the two authorities – either the ‘AO’ or ‘the prescribed income-tax authority’ – can issue a notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act. The expression ‘as the case may be’ also indicates the same.
Revenue also referred to Section 12E of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (hereafter the Rules) which expressly provides that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereafter the CBDT) can authorise an Income-tax Officer to act as a ‘prescribed authority’ under Section 143 (2) of the Act.
In the present case, the CBDT had issued a notification dated 12.05.2022 and 28.05.2022, in exercise of powers under Rule 12E of the Rules, and had authorised the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-1(1)(1) Delhi to act as the ‘prescribed income-tax authority’ for the purpose of issuance of notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act.
In the present case, the impugned notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act has been issued by the ACIT/ DCIT(International Taxation), Circle-1(1)(1), Delhi. In view of the above, the contention that the said Income Tax Officer did not have the jurisdiction to issue a notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act, is devoid of any merit.
The contention that other than the Assessing Officer, only the authorised Income Tax Officers of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) can issue a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act as the same would be in furtherance of automation of such process, is also unmerited. This proposition is not supported by the plain language of Section 143 (2) of the Act or Rule 12E of the Rules. Rule 12E of the Rules does not confine the power of the CBDT to authorise only the Income Tax Officers of the NaFAC as the prescribed authority for the purposes of Section 142 (1) of the Act.
The contention that the prescribed income tax authority can only serve a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act but cannot issue it, is insubstantial.
We are unable to accept that the AO did not have the jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices dated 10.07.2024 and 06.09.2024 under Section 142 (1) of the Act or that the same are beyond the period of limitation. Once it is accepted that the AO has the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act – which is also the contention of the petitioner in this case – the AO cannot be faulted for proceeding to complete the assessment.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1484
Writ petition filled beyond the statutory limitation period - violation of principles of natural justice as the personal hearing had not been given to the appellant dealer - HELD THAT:- Today when the matter is taken up for hearing Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Revenue has produced the original file, where we were able to find that, the notice of personal hearing dated 11.02.2019 had been issued by the Revenue which was received by the appellant dealer on 13.02.2019 by putting the seal as well as signature of the appellant dealer.
That apart, on 19.02.2019, a manuscript reply also had been sent by the appellant dealer to the said notice dated 11.02.2019. When that being so, it cannot be stated that, no opportunity of personal hearing had been given to the appellant dealer, therefore, on that ground, the writ petition cannot be entertained.
Even though arguments were advanced to some extent counsel appearing for the appellant, on the merits of the case, we are not impressed with the same, the reason being that, since the learned Judge through the impugned order had permitted the writ petitioner to file the statutory appeal within four weeks time, where further direction also had been given by the writ Court to entertain such an appeal without reference to the limitation, however by ensuring the compliance of all other statutory conditions, including pre-deposit, the question of canvassing the merits of the case before this Court at this juncture does not arise.
As against the order impugned dated 17.10.2022, as we stated, the appeal has been presented on 22.12.2022, but has been filed only on 14.09.2024, therefore, unnecessarily the appellant dealer has delayed the matter instead of filing appeal by filing the present intra Court appeal, therefore, for all these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal and the order passed by the learned Judge which is impugned herein dated 17.10.2022 since is to be sustained by giving two weeks time to the appellant to file a statutory appeal before the appellate forum. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.
It is made clear that, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if no appeal is filed, it is open to the Revenue / Assessing Authority to proceed in accordance with law pursuant to the order impugned before the writ Court.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1483
Foreign Tax Credit [FTC] claim r/w Article 24 of India-UK Tax Treaty (“DTAA”) - HELD THAT:- This Court, by following the judgment of G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 397 - SC ORDER] held that filing of foreign tax credit in terms of Rule 128 is only directory in nature and not mandatory.
In the present case the petitioner was working in United Kingdom. The petitioner filed return of income in India for the assessment year 2020-2021 on 21.09.2020 showing the income earned in the foreign country, in which he claimed being TDS credit before United Kingdom, as FTC u/s 90. But the petitioner uploaded Form 67 with delay, which he suppose to upload while filing the return of income. As noted that Section 90, Section 90A and Section 91 of the Income Tax Act of 1961 have been drafted specifically to avoid the burden of double taxation.
In the present case, even though the petitioner had not uploaded Form-67 while filing return of tax, later he uploaded the same with delay and that too due to Covid out break he was not able to get necessary documents from the foreign country, which appears to be genuine. Therefore this Court is inclined to condone the delay in filing Form 67 and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1482
Validity of reopening of assessment - notice issued after expiry of normal period of limitation that is four (4) years - change of opinion - tangible materials material found or not? - HELD THAT:- Petitioner had furnished all the documents required for completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
In the returns that was filed by the Petitioner on 15.09.2013, the Petitioner has disclosed the entire amount received under the aforesaid Agreement but claimed as capital gains instead of treating them as business income. Since the assessment was completed after furnishing all the documents including the two mentioned agreement, it has to be construed that the Impugned Order is inspired from change of opinion and therefore, it has to be quashed in the light of the decision of Kelvinator of India Limited [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT]
Since the notice itself has been issued after expiry of four (4) years, the Department could have invoked Section 147 only if tangible materials were available and that there was failure on the part of the Petitioner to disclose materials/documents and informations which were required for completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1481
Transfer of case u/s 127 - sufficient material for transfer or not? - transfer from the Office of Income Tax, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai to the Office of the DCIT, Circle- 4(4), Kolkata ('Central Circle') - transfer order has been passed to centralize the case of the petitioner for effective and co-ordinated investigation along with other cases - HELD THAT:- Though petitioner contended that the petitioner is having their registered office at Chennai and no business activities were carried out at Kolkata, but upon search and seizure carried out u/s 132 on 12.10.2023 by the Authorised Officer under the control of the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkata, number of incriminating documents and materials came to be seized, which were directly connecting with the involvement of the petitioner in the business operation of Lottery in the state of West Bengal in different capacities such as Sub-distributors, Stockist, Printing press, etc.
Since all the materials have been collected in Kolkata Central Circle, the 1st respondents, taking into consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner, decided to transfer the petitioner's case to the Central Circle, Kolkata. It is pertinent to note that apart from the petitioner case, there were eight other cases, which were found indulging similar activities as that of the petitioner in conducting the business operations of lottery, the 1st respondent ordered transfer of all cases to the Central Circle of Kolkata for the purpose of coordinated investigation in Lottery Group.
No substance in the contentions raised by petitioner that the respondents failed either to provide an opportunity or lack of sufficient materials to transfer the case from ITO, Corporate Ward 2(3), Chennai to DCIT, Central Circle 4(4), Kolkata. Accordingly, the Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are answered.
Whether the respondents have provided an opportunity for filing a reply and personal hearing before passing the impugned Notification? - The paramount consideration for transfer should be the public interest and the power is to be guided and controlled to serve the purpose of the Act. If the transfer is being made for the purpose of co-ordinated investigation for the purpose of assessment and collection of tax in a more convenient or efficient way, then it will be a good ground for transfer. In the present case, this Court does not find any irregularity or infirmity in passing the impugned Notification by the 1st respondent ordering transfer of the case of the petitioner to DCIT, Central Circle, Kolkata along with other cases only for the purpose of co-ordinated investigation in Lottery Group. No doubt, transfer of a case from the place where the assessee has its place of residence or business to another place causes inconvenience but if it is necessary in the public interest then the transfer on the ground of proper and co-ordinated investigation cannot be held to be impermissible in law.
No prejudice that would be caused due to the present notification to the petitioner because no final assessment order adverse to the petitioner was passed, except the transfer of the petitioner's case by invoking Section 127 of the Act from ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3) to DCIT, Central Circle, Kolkata. Income Tax Act, being a taxing statute, very strict interpretation has to be given and in the absence of any prejudice caused to the petitioner, the challenge to the impugned notification has to be rejected. WP dismissed.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1480
Validity of the Section 234E - processing TDS statements u/s 200A - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the respondent had imposed the late fee only u/s 234E of the Act. However, Section 200A of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years and it was introduced only with effect from 01.06.2015.
Therefore, in the absence of any provisions under Section 200A the respondents ought not to have imposed late fee under Section 234E while processing the applications for TDS u/s 200A. Hence, in such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Demand Intimation Letters are liable to be set aside. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1479
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Violation of principles of natural justice in passing penalty orders without granting reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
HELD THAT:- When the ITAT passed orders as early as on 09.01.2024 and 10.01.2024, it is not known as to what prevented the respondent from acting in consequent to the order passed by ITAT immediately, rather than to wait till the fag end of six months' expiry time and to issue notice on one fine day, i.e., 19.07.2024, by quantifying the penalty amount and calling upon the petitioner to pay the penalty amount, the petitioner, who has issued with such notice all of a sudden, sought for two weeks' time to putforth their contention and to file supportive documents, which the respondent refused to grant citing the expiry of time period as reason for such refusal.
Thus, it is clear that the respondent remained a mute spectator for nearly five months, right from the date, on which, the orders were passed by ITAT i.e. on 09.01.2024 and 10.01.2024 and at the eleventh hour, the respondent issued notice dated 19.07.2024 and called upon the petitioner to show cause to why, penalty should not be imposed and though the petitioner appeared in person and sought time on two occasions, the respondent, without acceding to any of such request made by the petitioner, proceeded to pass orders, thereby, giving effect order to the directions issued by CIT (Appeals) and ITAT on 30.07.2024, by rejecting the submission filed by the petitioner and very next date, i.e. on 31.07.2024 passed the impugned orders imposing penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) which is in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders.
-
2024 (10) TMI 1478
Rejection of Condonation of delay in filing income tax returns - as per petitioner reasons such as the impact of Covid-19 on operations, loss leading to non-payment of electricity charges, and corruption of computer data lead to delay - HELD THAT:- On perusal of records, it is seen that due to outbreak of Covid-19 and lock down throughout the Country since March 2020, the petitioner- Company's operations were stopped abruptly, therefore, the petitioner- Company faced with a huge loss, resulting in non-payment of the electricity charges, due to which, power connections were also cut in the Factory, apart from the same, due to non-usage of the Computer, the server of the Computer, where, the petitioner used to maintain accounts got corrupt and hence, all the Computer data backups were lost, hence, the petitioner was not in a position to file Income Tax Returns in time, however, as and when, the petitioner was able to reconstruct the lost records, they filed returns for the AY 2021-22 and that since there happened to be delay of nine months in filing the returns, (as the due date for filing the returns was on or before 15.03.2022), the petitioner has rightly taken out an Application for condonation of the delay, clearly setting out the reasons for the delay.
Thus, the delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the returns is neither willful nor wanton, but, purely owing to unforeseen circumstances, therefore, the respondent before rejecting the application ought to have taken into consideration of all the aforesaid aspects.
Respondent also failed to consider the vital factor that the petitioner is not a habitual offender, to file returns with a delay and that excluding the subject AY (i.e. 2020-21) the petitioner has been prompt in filing the returns in respect of the past Assessment Years and subsequent Assessment Years. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the reasons assigned by the petitioner for the delay is genuine and reasonable, and is inclined to condone the delay, however, subject to payment of costs, as agreed by the petitioner.
............
|
9911796707
