|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1467 Records
-
2016 (4) TMI 1308 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Club or Association Services - penalty - Held that: - the penalty issue cannot be decided without first deciding the appellant’s liability to pay service tax - the present appeal requires to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision alongwith the assessee’s appeal filed against confirmation of demand of duty - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1307 - ITAT PUNE
Benefit of exemption u/s.11 denied - assessee is not engaged in charitable activity and has not provided services to the underprivileged section of the society - running of the canteen - Held that:- Denial of exemption u/s.11 by the AO on account of running of the canteen is not correct, we find no infirmity in his order holding that the assessee cannot be denied exemption u/s.11 of the Act for running a canteen and making profit out of it. So long as the surplus generated from the canteen is utilized for making relief, the exemption u/s.11 in our opinion cannot be denied unless it is brought on record that such surplus generated has not been utilized for charitable purposes or has been utilized for non charitable purposes. Since there is no such finding given by the AO, therefore, denial of exemption u/s.11 on account of running of the canteen is not justified.
As regards the objection of the AO that assessee trust has organized musical nights and such programmes are not warranted in case of a charitable trust, we find this objection of the AO is also not at all justified. When the assessee has clarified that the musical nights were performed by renowned artists who did not take any remuneration from the trust and the main intension of organizing such programmes was to reduce the stress level of the patients and their relatives, therefore, under these circumstances denial of exemption u/s.11 in our opinion is not warranted. The Ld.CIT(A) has properly appreciated the facts and rejected the objection of the AO on this issue by giving valid reasons which in our opinion is proper and justified.
Next objection of the AO that the assessee had received donations from the patients in lieu of medical services rendered for which he has given examples such as Mr. Dilip Nayakude, Mrs. Kavita Waghle and Mr. Rajesh Deepak etc. We find the assessee has conclusively proved before us that the donation given by the above persons are much less than the concession given to them. Since the CIT(A) has rejected the objection of the AO after considering the various evidences furnished by the assessee before him wherein the above persons had clarified that they had given donations to the assessee trust on their own will and since the AO in the remand proceedings also could not controvert the various submissions given by the assessee, therefore, the order of the CIT(A) holding that there is no merit in the allegation of the AO that the assessee trust has issued donation receipts and has evaded tax is correct.
As regards the objection of the AO that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act by paying remuneration of ₹ 90,000/- to Mrs. Meena Kelkar and ₹ 6 lakhs to Mrs. Bharti Mangeshkar is concerened, we find such objection of the AO is also not correct as from the various details furnished by the assessee we find Mr. Meena Kelkar was earlier looking after house keeping department of Sanjeevan Hospital and thus was having enough experience. Further, she was appointed in place of Smt. Sarita Shelke who was looking after the house keeping activity and she was paid remuneration of ₹ 16,000/- per month. The various evidences furnished by the assessee in the paper book show that Mr. Meena Kelkar was actually looking after the house keeping activity of the assessee trust. The trustee Dr. Dhananjay Kelkar had also filed an affidavit before the CIT(A) that the remark made by the AO was incorrect and he had not made any statement in the assessment proceedings as alleged by the AO.
The next objection of the AO that assessee has received rent of ₹ 2,88,100/- from various parties which includes ₹ 1,88,000/- from Bharti Airtel for allowing them to erect their tower in the premises of the trust which is commercial exploitation of the property, CIT(A) has already held that the same is for supplementing the main object of the assessee trust. We agree with the argument of the assessee that erection of such tower in the premises of the hospital enhances the signal for telecommunication. Further, as the rent has been shown in the books of account and has been utilized for the objects of the trust, therefore, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and hold that exemption cannot be denied for receiving rent from Bharti Airtel for erecting tower in the hospital premises.
Thus we find no infirmity in his order allowing the benefit of exemption u/s.11 . - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (4) TMI 1306 - ITAT DELHI
Transfer pricing adjustment - treatment of extraordinary cost by the TPO as operating cost - Held that:- The assessee bears all risks including environmental risk, which position is borne out from the assessee’s Transfer pricing study report and has not been disputed by the ld. AR. This indicates that revenues of the assessee include compensation for environmental loss as well, which has not been treated as an item of non-operating revenue. Once there is such additional compensation also, which has been taken as an item of operating revenue, then the costs incurred in bearing such risks have to be naturally considered as operating costs of the assessee. In view of the above discussion, we are satisfied that the TPO was fully justified in not allowing reduction on account of extra-ordinary costs to the tune of ₹ 12.44 crore while calculating the assessee’s operating profit margin. We, therefore, refuse to countenance the assessee’s contention on this issue.
TP adjustment in respect of capital expenses - MAM selection - Held that:- Two items, namely, `Purchase of capital goods’ at ₹ 124.82 crore and `Fees for technical & consultancy services’ at ₹ 15.50 crore have been capitalized by the assessee and hence cannot be considered for making transfer pricing adjustment under the TNMM. Since operating profit is computed by considering the items of operating costs alone, the value of these two items which are capital in nature and have been capitalized in the balance sheet, cannot be included in the base amount for applying the operating profit margin rate of the comparables for computing the amount of transfer pricing adjustment. Direct to exclude them from the base amount of ₹ 148.78 crore for applying the mean profit margin rate of the comparables to determine the amount of transfer pricing adjustment under the TNMM.
TPO has considered these two items under the overall TNMM, as was wrongly done by the assessee also and then he went on to consider the value of these two transactions of capital nature for making transfer pricing adjustment. This approach of benchmarking these items of balance sheet under the TNMM, as done by the assessee and then followed by the TPO, is not appropriate, thus, calling for correction. No doubt, the stand of the assessee seeking exclusion of these two transactions of capital nature from the base amount for calculating transfer pricing adjustment under the TNMM is justified, but, at the same time these transactions of capital nature are required to be benchmarked by considering CUP as the most appropriate method. The ld. AR during the course of hearing admitted this position. Since the TPO has not done benchmarking in a proper manner as discussed above, we set aside the impugned order and direct the TPO/AO to benchmark these transactions of capital nature under the CUP method independent of other transactions under the TNMM.
Selection of comparables - Held that:- Functional comparability has to be necessarily considered before including or excluding a company from the list of comparables. Nowhere has it been laid down in this case that a company with higher or lower turnover can be excluded merely for this reason. Therefore Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. is directed to be included in the final set of comparables.
Triveni Glass Ltd. - no extraordinary reasons for incurring of loss of Triveni Glass Ltd. for the year and this company is not a consistent loss making company, we hold that the same cannot be excluded.
Gujarat Guardian Ltd. - TPO has thoroughly dealt with all the objections raised by the assessee, such as, earning of dividend income by Gujarat Guardian, difference in power consumption and payment of royalty/fees for technical services, etc. AR has not brought any material on record to fortify his contention about difference in power consumption rates of the assessee vis-à-vis this company. TPO was right in including this company in the list of comparables.
Thus we aside the impugned order on the question of addition towards transfer pricing adjustment of Float glass division and remit the matter to the file of AO/TPO for recalculating the ALP and consequential addition.
Addition u/s 14A - Held that:- Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Maxopp Investments Ltd. Vs. CIT (2011 (11) TMI 267 - Delhi High Court) has held that the provisions of Rule 8D are applicable only from the assessment year 2008-09. It has further been held that in the period anterior to that, the disallowance is required to be made on some reasonable basis. In view of the judgment above on the point, we cannot approve the view taken by the AO in computing the disallowance u/s 14A as per the mandate of Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules. Accordingly matter is restored to the file of the AO for making disallowance u/s 14A on some reasonable basis
-
2016 (4) TMI 1305 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Addition u/s 41 - remission or cessation of liability - explanation offered by the assessee was not satisfactory - Held that:- In the present case, once the credit entry qua Sh. Anup Kumar is continuing in the assessee’s books over several years and it has been accepted as such, the ld. CIT(A) has clearly erred while accepting Sh. Anup Kumar’s version that he did not owe anything to the assessee and rejecting the assessee’s entry of credit outstanding. Thereby, the Authorities below have raised the issue of genuineness of the credit entry during the year under consideration, which action is not sustainable in view of the ‘Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd.’ (2013 (5) TMI 690 - DELHI HIGH COURT ). Therefore the addition is deleted.
Apropos party no.2, the entry has been standing in the assessee’s books over the years and it has not been challenged in the initial year of such entry. no conclusion of cessation of liability can be arrived at. As such, this addition is deleted.
So far as regards party no. 3, i.e., Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur the fact that the entry was statedly a wrong entry does not stand disputed by the Taxing Authorities, since they had not disputed the fact that this entry was rectified in the next year. As such, existing over the years, this entry has not been earlier decided against the assessee. Accordingly, this addition is also deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Trading addition - unaccounted sales - Held that:- It is trite that no addition can be made in the trading results without any material on record and without pointing out any defect, either in the method of accounting of the assessee, or in the books of account maintained by the assessee. See‘J.A. Trivedi Brothers vs. CIT’(1984 (11) TMI 39 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court) - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1304 - ITAT, BANGALORE
TPA - comparable selection - Held that:- Referring to the Software applications developed by the assessee are in the field of telecom call processing, element management systems and signaling protocol adoption, thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessed to be deselected from final list.
Deduction u/s. 10A - Held that:- CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. (2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT), wherein it was held that total turnover is sum total of export turnover and domestic turnover. Hence, when these two items of expenses are to be excluded from export turnover, it automatically gets excluded from total turnover because it cannot be said that these expenses are part of domestic turnover and therefore, when export turnover is reduced, total turnover is automatically reduced because total turnover as per this judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court is sum total of export turnover + domestic turnover.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1303 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods - goods detained on the ground that there was no CST tax collected - Held that: - since the petitioner is willing to pay the one time tax amount of ₹ 1,28,934/-, the petitioner is directed to pay the said amount and on payment of the said amount, the respondent is directed to release the goods and the vehicles forthwith - petition disposed off.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1302 - DELHI HIGH COURT
The Registry is directed to re-number the present suit as CS (Commercial) and while allotting the new number, the Registry shall also indicate on the file, the old registration number of the case.
Ld. proxy counsel for defendant seeks adjournment on the ground that the main counsel is suffering from fever and is not available today.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1301 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Offence under PMLA - Adjudicating Authority was not composed as required under Section 6(1) of the Act as it had only one member, therefore was corum non judice - Held that:- As during the pendency of the present petition, by virtue of order dated 09.09.2015 filed on behalf of the authority concerned, the Court clarified with regard to the interim order providing that the provisional attachment will not expire after 180 days as the petition was pending and the relief was in operation.
Now, therefor the proceedings can be carried on before the properly constituted Adjudicating Authority. In this view, the present petition is liable to be disposed of requiring the Adjudicating Authority to take up the case and pass appropriate order.
In view of aforesaid development and the duly constituted Adjudicating Authority functioning, the said authority-respondent No.3 herein is directed to proceed with the case and decide the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits. The Adjudicating Authority shall consider the matter on its merits and in accordance with law. The parties are at liberty to raise all contentions including in respect of show-cause notice as may be permissible in law and the Adjudicating Authority shall deal with the same on its merits and decide the matter.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1300 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Held that:- Petitioner is invoking a statutory remedy which is in addition to the contractual remedy. Moreover, under Section 397(2)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, Company Law Board has to come to a conclusion that a case for winding up is made out, prior to granting any relief. In Haryana Telecom Ltd. Vs. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd, (1999 (7) TMI 545 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Supreme Court has held that arbitration clause is not attracted to winding up proceedings.
It is also settled law that under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, relief can be granted even contrary to any Articles of Association, which an Arbitrator cannot do as he is a creature of the contract i.e. Articles of Association. Consequently, the present writ petition being bereft of merit is dismissed along with the applications.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1299 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deduction u/s 10A - deduction u/s.10A was restricted by CIT(A) to the extent of receipt of foreign exchange upto 30-9-2008 - Held that:- Deduction u/a.10A was restricted to the extent of export receipts realised uptll 30-9-2008. The assessee company is situated In SEZ, the RBI, the Competent Authority, u/s.10A(3) of the Act had vide its Circular bearing A.P. -(DIR Series) Circular No:91 dated 1st April, 2003 relaxed the realization of export proceeds.
See Tara Jewels Exports case [2014 (1) TMI 1828 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein held that RBI has clarified that it has not stipulated any time period for the realization of the sale proceeds for the SEZ units, as the assessee. it can-only be considered as having allowed an indefinite time period for the same. Consequently, it cannot be said that the condition of section 10A(3) is' not satisfied. The objection of the Revenue is, in our view, not valid.
In view of the above, we restore the matter back to the file of AO for recomputing eligible deduction after considering the RBI Circular and also considering the decision of coordinate bench as discussed above. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1298 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
CENVAT credit - manufacturer of sugar and molasses as well as exempted Bagasse - non-maintenance of separate records - reversal of 10% of the price of the exempted final products - Held that: - he issue of reversal of Cenvat, on bagasse have been decided in favor of assessee by the Apex Court in U.O. India v. DSCL Sugar Ltd. [2015 (10) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that it is not in dispute that Bagasse is only an agricultural waste and residue, which itself is not the result of any process. Therefore, it cannot be treated as falling within the definition of Section 2(f) of the Act and the absence of manufacture, there cannot be any excise duty. Since it is not a manufacture, obviously Rule 6 of the Cenvat Rules, 2004, shall have no application - the Appeal is allowed subject to payment of cost of ₹ 10,000/- to be paid in ‘Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund’.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1297 - SC ORDER
Leave to withdraw the appeal - liberty to approach the High Court - Clandestine removal of goods - Valuation of goods - the decision in the case of M/s. Belgium Glass & Ceramics Pvt. Limited And Others Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad And Others [2015 (5) TMI 528 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] contested - Held that: - Leave and liberty granted - appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1296 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Depreciation on fixed assets - non-commencement of business - not able to prove how the assets utilized by when no business was carried on by it. - Held that:- Liquor business is on a different footing than other business activities. It is undisputed before me that under Section 60 of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, carrying on trade in liquor without licence is punishable with imprisonment. - We are of the view that since assessee has not conducted any business or profession during the year under consideration, therefore, authorities below were justified in not granting depreciation and deduction on account of expenditure. The appeal of the assessee fails and is dismissed.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1295 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - appeal filed beyond 60 days - Section 378(5) of Cr.P.C - order of acquittal - In the private complaint cases, for the victims, whether the right of appeal as provided in proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is available or the only option for them is to seek leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C ?
Held that: - the term 'victim' found in the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C shall not include a victim, who is a complainant in a complaint case and that the term 'victim' used in the said Proviso shall be confined to the victims in cases instituted otherwise than on a complaint. In the case on hand, the criminal case was instituted on the file of the trial Court on a complaint made by the respondent/complainant. In fact, the offence is a non-cognizable offence and hence, there can be no other mode of institution of the criminal case than by preferring a complaint to the Magistrate. The offence alleged is one punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
As the case ended in acquittal before the trial Court, the remedy available to the respondent herein (complainant) was to approach this Court (High Court) under Section 378(4) within the period stipulated in Section 378(5) seeking Special Leave to file an appeal against acquittal. Instead of adopting such a procedure, the respondent herein (complainant) chose to prefer an appeal under the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C before the Sessions Court and the learned Appellate Judge either without considering the scope of the Proviso to Section 372 or in an erroneous interpretation of the said provision, assumed jurisdiction and decided the appeal which went against the appellant herein (accused). The appellant is right in challenging the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Judge on the ground of absence of jurisdiction.
Whether a complainant, who is also a victim, should seek special leave, from the High Court as provided under Section 378(5) of the Code or whether as a matter of right, he can avail a statutory right of appeal is one question, which arises herein. In the cases arising out of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, invariably it is the complainant (either as a victim of the offence or otherwise), who sets the law in motion. But, in the case of other offences under the Indian Penal Code or other Enactments, the position may not be the same. In those cases, the law could be set in motion either on a police report or through a private complaint. Hence, an interpretation of Section 372 vis- -vis Section 378(4) in these matters will also have a bearing on the other types of offences also.
The correct law, as emerging from the Scheme of the Code, would be that the right of a victim to prefer an appeal (on limited grounds enumerated in proviso to Section 372 of the Code) is a separate and independent statutory right and is not dependent either upon or is subservient to right of appeal of the State. In other words, both the victim and the State/prosecution can file appeals independently without being dependent on the exercise of the right by the other. Moreover, from the act or omission for which the accused has been charged, there may be more than one victim and the loss suffered by the victims may vary from one victim to the other victims. Therefore, each of such victims will have separate right of appeal and in such appeals, the grievance of each of the appellant may be different.
Appeal dismissed being not maintainable.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1294 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Entitlement to claim the weighted deduction at the specified rate u/s S.35 (2AB) - approval of the in-house research and development facility - quantum of such expenditure - no show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner assessee before cost of purchase of motor vehicles and salary and wages of the trainees and apprentices as disallowed from the category of 'approved expenditure on scientific research' - Held that:- Undisputably before reducing the amount of R & D expenditure for these two Assessment Years in question i.e., 2011-12 and 2012-13 to the extent of ₹ 59.69 lakhs and 55.51 lakhs respectively, the said respondent Secretary did not give any prior show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner assessee as to why these two amounts under two different heads namely, cost of purchase of motor vehicles and salary and wages of the trainees and apprentices, be not disallowed from the category of 'approved expenditure on scientific research'. Thus, the assessee was deprived of its valuable right of hearing and rebut and controvert the case against him on the basis of which, the said respondent Secretary passed the impugned order approving the expenditure for scientific research as required under the provisions of S.35 (2AB) at a reduced level. Had such a notice been given by the said authority to the assessee company, perhaps the assessee company could have satisfied the said authority about the genuineness of the claim and rational nexus of these expenses relatable to the scientific research undertaken by it entitling it for claiming the weighted deduction in respect of these expenses also under the category of approved expenditure for scientific research under S.35(2AB) of the Act.
The impugned order is thus clearly hit by the vice of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice or audi alterm partem, the applicability of which even to the taxing statute cannot be ruled out. The competent authority passed this order under these provisions certainly exercising a quasi-judicial function when he passed this order approving the expenditure incurred by the assessee on scientific research. No such unilateral action or determination could have been taken by the respondent Secretary particularly when he chose to reduce the amount of expenditure incurred on scientific research as against the amount claimed by the assessee, to the detriment of the assessee company resulting in an adverse double tax effect as per the provisions of the Act.
This Court would not like to pronounce upon the includibility of these expenses in the head of 'approved expenditure for scientific research' at this stage and it is considered appropriate that the 1st respondent Secretary himself is allowed to reconsider the case on these issues after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in this regard
-
2016 (4) TMI 1293 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Offences punishable under Sections 21/22/29/61/85 of NDPS Act - prayer for grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C - Held that:- There is alleged recovery of 50 vials of Rexcof Cough Syrup (100 ML each) from the petitioner and his co-accused/non-applicant-Ranjit Singh @ Happy, traveling in a Scorpio vehicle. Apart from that, there is a recovery of 500 intoxicating tablets of 'JACKSON', containing 4.2 mg of Diazepam in each tablet from the petitioner alone on his disclosure statement.
The co-accused Ranjit Singh was not involved in any other case whereas the petitioner is stated to be involved in three other cases including one under the NDPS Act.
After arguing for sometime, learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused wishes to withdraw the present petition. Dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1292 - ITAT DELHI
TPA - comparable selection criteria - Held that:- The assessee is engaged in the business of managing call centers, software development and providing information technology enable services from the undertaking registered with the Software Technology Park, thus companies functionally dissimlar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list of comparability
-
2016 (4) TMI 1291 - SUPREME COURT
Transaction in the name of the minor - Suit instituted within three years of limitation from the date of attaining majority - Held that:- A quondam minor plaintiff challenging the transfer of an immovable property made by his guardian in contravention of Section 8(1)(2) of the 1956 Act and who seeks possession of property can file the Suit only within the limitation prescribed under Article 60 of the Act and Articles 109, 110 or 113 of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the case.
The High Court as well as the Trial Court erred in applying Article 109 of the Act, where Article 109 of the Act clearly speaks about alienation made by father governed by Mitakshara law and further Courts below proceeded in discussing about the long rope given under Article 109 of the Act and comparatively lesser time specified under Article 60 of the Act. It is well settled principle of interpretation that inconvenience and hardship to a person will not be the decisive factors while interpreting the provision. When bare reading of the provision makes it very clear and unequivocally gives a meaning it was to be interpreted in the same sense as the Latin maxim says “dulo lex sed lex”, which means the law is hard but it is law and there cannot be any departure from the words of the law.
Hence, in view of our above discussion, the limitation to file the present Suit is governed by Article 60 of the Act and the limitation is 3 years from the date of attaining majority. When once we arrive at a conclusion that Article 60 of the Act applies and the limitation is 3 years, the crucial question is when there are several plaintiffs, what is the reckoning date of limitation? A reading of Section 7 makes it clear that when one of several persons who are jointly entitled to institute a Suit or make an application for the execution of the decree and a discharge can be given without the concurrence of such person, time will run against all of them but when no such discharge can be given, time will not run against all of them until one of them becomes capable of giving discharge.
In the case on hand, the 1st plaintiff was 20 years old, the 2nd defendant was still a minor and the plaintiffs 3, 4 and 5, who are married daughters, were aged 29, 27 and 25 respectively, on the date of institution of the Suit in the year 1989. As per Explanation 2 of Section 7, the manager of a Hindu undivided family governed by Mithakshara law shall be deemed to be capable of giving a discharge without concurrence of other members of family only if he is in management of the joint family property. In this case, plaintiffs 3 to 5 though majors as on the date of institution of Suit will not fall under Explanation 2 of Section 7 of the Limitation Act as they are not the manager or Karta of the joint family. The first plaintiff was 20 years old as on the date of institution of the Suit and there is no evidence forthcoming to arrive at a different conclusion with regard to the age of the 1st plaintiff. In that view of the matter, the Suit is instituted well within three years of limitation from the date of attaining majority as envisaged under Article 60 of the Act.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1290 - ITAT RAJKOT
Provision of overdue interest on NPA accounts - Held that:- It is an undisputed fact that assessee is a co-operative bank and is governed by the Reserve Bank of India guidelines. We find that ld. CIT(A) after considering the CBDT Circular, provisions of Act and various decisions cited in the order has held that A.O. was not justified in disallowing the claim of deduction on the issue of interest on overdue loans.
We find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Deogiri Nagar Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors. (2015 (1) TMI 1218 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) has held that prudential norms issued by Reserve Bank of India are equally applicable to co-operative banks and that interest on sticky advances is not taxable. Before us, Revenue has not brought on record any contrary binding decision in its support. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A). Thus, the ground of Revenue is dismissed.
-
2016 (4) TMI 1289 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - monitory limit - Held that:- From Circular No.21 of 2015 the respondent/assessee submitted that pending appeals before the High Court, below the specified tax limits as stated in paragraph 3 of the Circular, are liable to be withdrawn/not pressed.
It is appropriate to notice that the Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued the instructions contained in the said Circular in exercise of its power available to it under Section 268-A(i) of the Income Tax Act,1961 and hence, the Circular has statutorily enforceable character. In that view of the matter, we treat this appeal as not pressed and dismiss it as such. However, it goes without saying that the questions of law raised in this appeal for consideration of this Court in this appeal, are kept open to be decided on merits in an appropriate case
............
|
