Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2017 2017 (11) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 161 to 180 of 2067 Records

• 2017 (11) TMI 1909
  

  Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition made u/s 50C - HELD THAT:- A.O. did not bring any positive evidence on record to show that assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished any inaccurate particulars. The valuation of the Stamp Valuation Authority is not a conclusive evidence of receipt of the money by assessee over and above what is recorded in the sale deed.

  A.O. has not brought any concrete evidence of concealment of income in the order. A.O. at the stage of assessment, simply applied the deeming provisions of Section 50C without bringing any evidence on record for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars by the assessee. In the absence of any positive evidence with respect to concealment of income, there were no justification for the A.O. to levy penalty in the matter.

  In the case of CIT vs. Madan Teatres Ltd. [2013 (6) TMI 96 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] on identical facts, dismissed the departmental appeal in which it was held as where assessee had offered actual amount received on sale of property for taxation, revenue authorities were not justified in passing penalty order under section 271(1)(c) by adopting higher sale consideration under section 50C on basis of stamp duty valuation of said property.

  No interference is called for in the matter. - Decided against revenue.

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 1908
  

  Disqualification of directors of companies - Section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- For the purposes of interim protection, we are of the view that an arguable case has been made out by the petitioner/appellant. It appears, prima facie, that disqualification under Section 164(2) of the said Act would not prevent the petitioner to continue to act as Director of other companies which are not in default. However, we are not expressing any opinion as to whether or not he will be eligible for re-appointment in any of the companies. We are also of the prima facie view that Section 164(2)(a) cannot be given retrospective effect, it being a penal or quasi-penal provision. We also feel that the balance of convenience is in favour of granting interim relief to the appellant/writ petitioner.

  There will be an interim order as follows:-

  An order of injunction staying the operation of the impugned list of disqualified directors published by the Respondent No. 1 so far as it pertains to the Appellant herein - An interim order allowing the Appellant to continue as director in all companies in which the Appellant has been serving as director.

  The interim order, passed herein, shall continue until disposal of the writ application by the learned single Judge - the appeal and the application for stay filed in connection with this appeal are, thus, disposed of.

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 1907
  

  Disallowance towards commission expenses paid to doctors - AO has relied upon the CBDT Circular No.5/2012 dated 01/08/2012 issued by BDT and observed that the payment made to the doctors contravenes section 37(1) - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue is no longer res integra and has been examined by the Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in Syncom Formulations (I) Ltd.[2016 (2) TMI 263 - ITAT MUMBAI] held as receiving of gifts by doctors was prohibited by MCI guidelines, giving of the same by manufacturer is not prohibited under any law for the time being in force. Giving small gifts bearing company logo to doctors does not tantamount to giving gifts to doctors but it is regarded as advertising expenses. Sponsoring doctors for conferences and extending hospitality, pharmaceuticals companies have been sponsoring practicing doctors to attend prestigious conferences so that they gather contemporary knowledge about management of certain illness/disease and learn about newer therapies.

  Disallowance was made by the AO by relying on the CBDT Circular dated 01.08.2012 onwards. However, the Circular was not applicable because it was introduced w.e.f.01.08.2012. i.e. assessment year 2013-2014, whereas the relevant assessment year under consideration is 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the disallowance - Decided in favour of assessee

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 1906
  

  Bogus purchases - addition was restricted to 12.5% of the purchases by CIT-A - as argued AO has not conducted any enquiry on his behalf, to prove the above purchases made from concerns to be non-genuine - HELD THAT:- Once the assessee has brought on record the details of payments by account payee cheque, it was incumbent on the AO to have verified the payment details from the bank of the assessee and also from the bank of the suppliers to verify whether there was any immediate cash withdrawal from their account. No such exercise has been done or findings recorded. There was no detailed investigation made by the AO himself - payments have been made by account payee cheque which are duly reflected in the bank statement of the assessee. There is no evidence to show that the assessee has received cash back from the suppliers. AO has not brought any material on record to show that there is suppression of sales. It is basic rule of accountancy as well as of taxation laws that profit from business cannot be ascertained without deducting cost of purchase from sales. After giving these observations, CIT(A) has directed AO to estimate profit at 12.5%.

  Assessee has already declared GP of 6.40% on the total sales. The GP declared by the assessee with respect to the alleged bogus purchases were better than the GP declared in respect of remaining sales. Therefore we modify both the orders of the lower authorities and direct the AO to restrict addition to the extent of 2% of the alleged bogus purchases so as to cover leakage of revenue if any. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 1905
  

  Addition on account of bogus purchases - AO estimated profit of 12.5% with respect to such alleged purchases and added the same in assessee’s income - CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO estimating profit at 12.5% by relying on the decision in the case of Simit P Seth 2013 (10) TMI 1028 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - as argued by AR that in the case of Simit P Seth estimation of profit of 12.5% by the High Court was made on the plea that rate of VAT was 10% in Gujarat and additional 2.5% profit was estimated AND contended that tax amount on account of VAT was also recovered from the assessee thereby leaving no benefit of VAT - HELD THAT:- As assessee has already declared GP of 3.9% on the sales so made during the year. Therefore, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case vis-à-vis nature of assessee’s business, GP offered by the assessee and also the rate of VAT prevailing in Maharashtra, having been recovered from assessee, we direct the AO to restrict the addition to the extent of 2% of such purchases. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 1904
  

  Capital gain computation - stamp duty valuation for the purpose of adopting value of consideration u/s 50C - date on which the agreement to sale was entered into OR date on which the transactions actually took place - counsel submitted that the relevant date for ascertaining whether or not the sale consideration is suppressed is the date on which an agreement was entered into - HELD THAT:- The issue in appeal is squarely covered by the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Dharamshibhai Sonani [2016 (9) TMI 1259 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] as held the amendment brought about by Finance Act, 2016, providing that “where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration for the transfer of the capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of computing full value of consideration for such transfer”, is retrospective in effect and applies from 1st April 2003. The detailed reasons for coming to this conclusion are already set out in the extract from the Tribunal’s decision quoted earlier in this order.

  Plea of the learned counsel indeed merits acceptance. We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication de novo in the light of observations above and the legal position set out in Dharamshibhai Sonani (supra). - Assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 1903
  

  Addition u/s 69 - unexplained source of cash deposited in saving fund account - Transaction of development envisaged in the JDA - only source of cash deposited by the assessee are the sale proceeds of agricultural land in earlier years because the assessee has no other source of income - assessee did not acquire any right to receive income - HELD THAT:- As decided in BALBIR SINGH MAINI, CS ATWAL [2017 (10) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT] if an agreement to sell is not registered, then it shall have no effect in law for the purposes of Section 53A. In short, there is no agreement in the eyes of law which can be enforced under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and that in order to qualify as a "transfer" of a capital asset under Section 2(47)(v) there must be a "contract" which can be enforceable in law under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

  Any transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance of a contract of the nature referred to in Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) can only be subjected to taxation. A reading of Section 17(1A) and Section 49 of the Registration Act shows that in the eyes of law that as unregistered Agreement, there is no contract which can be taken cognizance of, for the purpose specified in Section 53A. therefore it can be easily construed as has been stated above, there is no contract in the eye of law in force under Section 53A after 2001, unless the said contract is registered.

  While coming to the instant case, undisputedly the agreement to sell was not registered and in law without registering agreement to sell and /or the sale deed, the same can not be relied upon for any purposes, therefore claim of the Assessee that the Assessee got money from his father on the basis of agreement to sell which undisputedly unregistered, can not be relied upon, hence claim of the Asseeee qua unregistered documents does not survive.

  At the maximum, the amount which generated from the registered sale deeds can be taken into consideration to be received by the Assessee's father and given to the assessee as gift. Hence, we feel it appropriate to remand the case to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the registered sale deeds only and deduct the consideration amount thereof, from the amount as added in the assessment orders. Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 1902
  

  Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee surrendered the additional income - assessee omitted information regarding cash deposits - HELD THAT:- Assessee is rustic villager and did not know about the intricacies of the law, therefore, surrendered the income, we feel that the Id. Counsel has bonafide correct belief, however we feel it appropriate to deal the instant case under the parameters of income tax laws and law settled by apex court in MAK DATA P. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II [2013 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT].

  Assessee being an un- educated and rustic villager on bonafide beliefs, kept the earnest money in his bank account and waited for maturity of deal and did not show the earnest money in his Income Tax Return, and was unable to demonstrate his transactions of ₹ 22,50,000/- to the Revenue Authorities, however by filing an application u/s 29 of the I.T. Rules tried to substantiate his claim in respect of receiving earnest money of ₹ 22,50,000. No doubt the submissions of the assessee to the effect that the assessee had surrendered the amount in order to buy peace and subject to no penal action lacks merits.

  Because the Assessee sold his property by making unregistered Agreement to sell and received part payment only and somehow, the said deal could not be finalized , therefore he under the impression that he will return the earnest money to the buyer therefore has not shown the said amount in his income, although the said circumstances have been explained to the revenue authorities however did not yield any result , therefore we are of Asst. Year:2009-10 the considered view that the penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature cannot be fastened only on the probabilities and from the facts as emerged that the assessee has not concealed the particulars of income, hence, we order for deletion of penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 1901
  

  TP Adjustment - purchase of shares by the Assessee of its AEs - whether an international transaction and income from such international transaction has to be computed having regard to Arm’s Length Price (ALP) as laid down in Sec.92 - According to the revenue the value at which the shares were purchased by the Assessee was enormous and therefore the price paid to the extent it was in excess of the value of the shares determined on the basis of Net Asset Value (NAV) Method had to be regarded as loan by the Assessee to its AE - HELD THAT:- Identical issue as to whether the transaction of purchase of shares of AE can be subject matter of proceedings u/s.92 of the Act came up for consideration in Assessee’s own case in AY 2010-11 and for AY 2010-11 [2017 (11) TMI 1443 - ITAT KOLKATA] held that the transaction of purchase of shares of AE cannot be regarded as international transaction and cannot be subject matter of investigation u/s.92.

  Thus we hold that the determination of ALP in the present case cannot be sustained as the transaction in question is on capital account and determination of ALP in respect of such transactions is outside the purview of Chapter X of the Act. Consequently, the addition made by the AO in this regard is directed to be deleted.

  Whether transaction of providing guarantee by the Assessee in respect of a loan taken by its AE can be said to be an international transaction and if yes whether the determination of ALP in respect of the said international transaction as determined by the DRP is sustainable? - TPO rejected the claim of the Assessee that providing Guarantee to a subsidiary AE was in the nature of a shareholder activity and therefore such transactions are outside the purview of Sec.92 - HELD THAT:- As in Assessee’s own case in AY 2010-11 and for AY 2010-11 [2017 (11) TMI 1443 - ITAT KOLKATA] that the addition made by way of adjustment to ALP in respect of transaction of providing guarantee to AE cannot be sustained and the same is directed to the deleted.

  Disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- Dividend from debts funds of mutual funds and dividend from foreign company are taxable. In such circumstances, we are of the view no disallowance u/s.14A of the Act could have been made. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. Vs CIT [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that there can be no disallowance of expenses u/s.14A of the Act, if there is no exempt income during the relevant previous year. In the light of the aforesaid decision, we are of the view that there cannot be any disallowance u/s.14A of the Act. The disallowance is directed to be deleted.

  Admission of additional grounds - Allowance of foreign tax credit - taxes paid in Japan on the doubly taxed income in accordance with the provisions of section 90 of the Act, read with the India- Japan tax treaty - HELD THAT:- Keeping in mind the ratio of the Hon’ble supreme Court decision in the case of NTPC Vs. CIT [1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was held that legal questions on admitted facts can be permitted to be raised at any stage of the proceedings before Tribunal by way of additional grounds, the additional ground should be admitted for adjudication.

  As far as the question of giving credit to taxes paid in Japan is concerned, it requires verification by the AO and therefore the AO is directed to consider the plea of the Assessee raised in the additional ground in accordance with law after due verification. The Assessee should be given an opportunity of being heard before any decision is taken on the issue.

  Disallowance of employees contribution to Provident Fund made by the AO by invoking the provisions of Sec.36(1)(va) - HELD THAT:- Deduction claimed should be allowed as the employees contribution to the provident fund had admittedly been paid on or before the due date for filing return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. See M/s. Akzo Nobel India Ltd. Vs CIT [2016 (6) TMI 1128 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT].

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 1900
  

  Unexplained stock of gold - survey u/s 133A of the Act in the business premises of the assessee - HELD THAT:- It is now well settled by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs S Khader Khan Son [2013 (6) TMI 305 - SC ORDER] that no addition could be made based on statement recorded during survey as the survey powers u/s 133A of the Act does not empower the ITO to examine any person on oath and hence the statement recorded thereon has got no evidentiary value.

  We find that the assessee had duly reconciled the entire stock of gold found in the showroom at the time of survey with proper facts and records. Hence we have no hesitation in deleting the addition sustained by Ld CIT-A to the tune of ₹ 18,50,000/- and the remaining portion deleted by the ld CIT-A also does not require any interference. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed.

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 1899
  

  Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - issuance of demand notice of unpaid operational debt by advocate of Operational Creditor - section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- In the instant case the advocate of the operational creditor has issued a notice under section 8(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the same is not in the format as prescribed. Further, no authority of the board of directors for issue of the aforesaid notice was also submitted, in the absence of the same we are of the considered view that the present case of the operational creditor is covered by the decision in UTTAM GALVA STEELS LIMITED VERSUS DF DEUTSCHE FORFAIT AG & ANT. [2017 (8) TMI 1198 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI] and we have no other option but to reject the petition of the operational creditor.

  It was held in the case of UTTAM GALVA STEELS LIMITED that the notice issued by the lawyer on behalf of the Respondents can not be treated as a notice under section 8 of the I&B Code and for that the petition under section 9 at the instance of the Respondents against the Appellant was not maintainable.

  Petition rejected as the same is incomplete.

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 1898
  

  MAT credit calculations - surcharge and education cess to be calculated after deducting the MAT credit u/s 115JAA from the tax on assessed income or not? - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in M/S VIRTUSA (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE – 17 (2) , HYDERABAD [2016 (3) TMI 245 - ITAT HYDERABAD] Assessing Officer cannot overlook the formats and (interpret it in his own method of calculating tax credit while making assessment u/s 143(1)) proceed to calculate the MAT credit to compute assessment u/s 143(1) applying different methods when the proper and correct method as proposed by CBDT in ITR-6.

  Analyzing the provisions of section 115JA and 2(43) of the Act read with relevant clauses of the Finance Act has held that the MAT credit allowable to the assessee is inclusive of surcharge and cess - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 1897
  

  Setting up of Special Courts - HELD THAT:- Setting up of Special Courts and infrastructure would be dependent on the availability of finances with the States. Without going into the controversy raised on the aforesaid score, the problem can be resolved by having a Central Scheme for setting up of Courts exclusively to deal with criminal cases involving political persons on the lines of the Fast Track Courts which were set up by the Central Government for a period of five (05) years and extended further which Scheme has now been discontinued - A Scheme to give effect to the above may be laid before the Court on the next date fixed indicating the amount of funds that can be earmarked for setting up of Special Courts where-after the issue of appointment of Judicial Officers, Public Prosecutors, Court staff and other such requirement of man-power and infrastructure (which would depend on the availability of funds from the Central Government) will be dealt with by the Court, if required, by interacting with the representatives of the respective State Governments.

  The Election Commission of India is also granted two weeks' time to bring on record an affidavit showing the nature of cases wherein the power under Section 11 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has been exercised in the past.

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 1896
  

  Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum or not - CIRP process - HELD THAT:- After initiation of the 'Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process', the Resolution Professional objected the applicant-Export Import Bank of India ('Exim Bank' for short). While the appellant requested to allow it to continue as a member in the Committee of Creditors, in view of such objection, the appellant-Exim Bank preferred Company Appeal - After the matter was remitted to the Adjudicating Authority, the issue was not decided by the Adjudicating Authority in terms with the order of the Appellate Tribunal and the Adjudicating Authority remitted the matter to the Resolution Professional and Committee of Creditors to decide the application of the appellant, which was supposed to be decided by the Adjudicating Authority. For the said reason, the appellant-Exim Bank has challenged the order dated 27th October, 2017 whereby the Resolution Professional and Committee of Creditors have been asked to take collective decision.

  Thus, the final decision in terms of the order of this Appellate Tribunal dated 18th September, 2017 is to be taken by the Adjudicating Authority, which cannot abdicate its power by asking other authority to decide the question - the Adjudicating Authority is directed to decide the question as ordered by this Appellate Tribunal on 18th September, 2017 about the continuity of the Exim Bank as a member of the Committee of Creditors, immediately, preferably within three weeks, uninfluenced by the opinion if any submitted by the Resolution Professional and the Committee of Creditors.

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 1895
  

  TP Adjustment - Comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Onsite filter has to be applied but since it was applied by the DRP to only one comparable, all the comparables should be examined in the light of this filter and thereafter, the list of comparables should be finalized. We want to mention that in respect of those comparables which are passing through this filter i.e. onsite filter, the DRP should examine the applicability of all other relevant filters also and all other objections such as functional similarity / dissimilarity etc. also to decide about inclusion or exclusion of such comparables after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. Hence the entire TP matter is restored back to the file of DRP for fresh decision.

  Computing of deduction u/s. 10A - Reducing the expenditure incurred in foreign currency both from export turnover as well as total turnover - HELD THAT:- This issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held that total turnover is sum total of export turnover and domestic turnover and therefore, if an amount is reduced from export turnover then total turnover also goes down by the same amount. Respectfully following this judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, we decline to interfere in the order of DRP on this issue. Ground nos. 2 and 3 of revenue's appeal are rejected.

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 1894
  

  Disallowability of interest u/s 36(1) - interest expenditure is capitalized to WIP account and the income was recognized on the basis of Percentage Completion Method - HELD THAT:- Any amount of the interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the business purposes constitutes an allowable deduction. The said clause (iii) of section 36(1) of the Act supports the assessee’s claim in the present case. This view is upheld in the case of CIT Vs. Lokhandwala Construction Industries Ltd. [2003 (1) TMI 93 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ashish Builders Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (11) TMI 709 - ITAT MUMBAI] irrespective of the method of accounting of recognising the income followed by the assessee. The present case involves the payment of interest of the interest paid to debenture holders, Financial institutions, Unsecured loan etc. It is not the case of the Revenue that the interest claim and related capital borrowed was not utilised by the assessee for business purposes of the assessee.

  The claim of the assessee in capitalising the interest expenditure to the WIP account which was the base for computing or recognising the taxable profits of the year is in accordance with the declared policy of Percentage Completion Method for income recognition.The claim of the assessee is fair and reasonable. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) on this issue is required to be reversed. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 1 to 6 raised by the assessee are allowed.

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 1893
  

  Reopening of assessment - Addition of assessee's share on account of profit generated from sale of property - assessee having l/6th share in the property - HELD THAT:- There was no basis or material on record to calculate the value of land @Rs, 1000/- per sq.yd and of the cost of construction of ₹ 100/- per sq.ft. as is noted in the reasons. There is no material, what to say of tangible material available on record to justify re-opening of the assessment. AO merely on assumption, presumption, recording vague and non-existing reasons, recorded the reasons for re-opening of the assessment which are not sufficient to validate the re-opening of the assessment in the matter. Thus, there is no reason to believe with the Assessing Officer to assume the jurisdiction u/s148.

  Reasons recorded u/s 148 reflect as arbitrary use of power conferred, under section 147 of the Act. In this view of the matter, we set aside the orders of authorities below and quash the re-opening of the assessment under section 147/148 - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 1892
  

  Deduction u/s 80IA - AO observed that assessee is acting merely as a works contractor and therefore it is not entitled for deduction u/s 80IA - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2014 (1) TMI 1879 - ITAT KOLKATA] assessee has been paying VAT on the turnover in respect of various projects. The projects which have been undertaken by the assessee in West Bengal and Bihar are also such projects which are assessable under the relevant states VAT Laws In the circumstances we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA(4) as claimed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 1891
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Jurisdiction of CESTAT in confirming demand of cost recovery charges under specific regulations.
  2. Justification of penalties imposed by Commissioner of Customs for non-compliance.
  3. Validity of orders passed by Commissioner of Customs regarding approval suspension.
  4. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the orders passed.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Jurisdiction of CESTAT in confirming demand of cost recovery charges
  The substantial questions of law raised in the appeals question the jurisdiction of the CESTAT in confirming the demands of cost recovery charges under specific regulations. The appeals challenge the validity of the demands amounting to significant sums along with interest, contending that the CESTAT may have erred in upholding these demands. The provisions of regulation 5(2) read with regulation 6(1)(o) of the HCCAR, 2009 are central to this issue, with the appellants questioning the legality and jurisdiction of the demands made by the Commissioner of Income Tax.
  
  Issue 2: Penalties for non-compliance
  Another crucial issue in these appeals pertains to the penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs for alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and related regulations. The appeals question the justification of these penalties, especially the substantial amounts imposed, and seek a review of the penalties in light of the legal provisions governing such penalties. The appellants challenge the penalties of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 20,000 imposed in different cases, raising concerns about the compliance requirements and the penalty imposition process.
  
  Issue 3: Validity of orders regarding approval suspension
  The appeals also contest the validity of the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs regarding the suspension or revocation of the approval granted to the appellants as custodians in specific locations. The appellants question the legality and justification of these orders, particularly in relation to the principles of natural justice. The issue of whether the orders are in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the maxim "Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa," is central to this challenge.
  
  Issue 4: Compliance with principles of natural justice
  Lastly, the appeals raise concerns about the compliance with the principles of natural justice in the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellants argue that certain orders should be declared non-est in the eyes of the law due to alleged violations of natural justice principles. The appeals seek a thorough review of the orders dated 01.03.2013, 6.11.2012, and others, emphasizing the importance of fair procedures and unbiased decision-making in administrative actions.
  
  In conclusion, the appeals before the Rajasthan High Court involve complex legal issues surrounding jurisdiction, penalty imposition, order validity, and compliance with principles of natural justice. The court will need to delve into the specifics of the regulations, legal provisions, and procedural fairness to adjudicate on the substantial questions of law raised in these appeals.

  ---

• 2017 (11) TMI 1890
  

  Oppression and mismanagement - Appellants had made various allegations against the Statutory Auditors alleging acts of omission and commission in collusion with the Board of Directors - HELD THAT:- The Company Petition filed before the NCLT, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati is under Sections 241, 242, 243 and 244 of the Companies Act. The acts of oppression and mismanagement under these Sections could be averred against the Company, Board of Directors, Shareholders or its members. The Statutory Auditors are admittedly none of these. Before NCLT petition was not under Section 245 of the Companies Act 2013, which is a new provision.

  There are no error with the impugned order which has recorded proper reasons - impugned order upheld - Company appeal dismissed.

  ---

1 ....5678910111213........ 104