|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1482 Records
-
2023 (6) TMI 1322
Write off of Cenvat credit - Allowable as business expenditure/loss - Advances (i.e. Input Cenvat Credit) Appellant was constrained to write off during the year under consideration as per the direction of service tax department - HELD THAT:- As is evident, the input cost is revenue in nature and accordingly service tax paid on such revenue costs is also eligible to be claimed as revenue expenditure. Further, the matter is covered as the Assessee Company has been given relief by Hon'ble DRP panel where adjustment of "Advances written off' is reversed.
CIT(DR) have not controverted above factual position. Therefore we are inclined to hold that the input cost is revenue in nature and accordingly service tax paid on such revenue cost is also eligible to claim as revenue expenditure u/s. 37(1) of the Act.
Our conclusion further gets support from the order of Mohan Spg. Mills [2013 (11) TMI 113 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] It is also relevant to mention that in the case of NCS Distilleries P. Ltd. [2014 (9) TMI 1160 - ITAT HYDERABAD] held that the amount of advance in the course of business which become irrecoverable is deductable or allowable as business expenditure/loss.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1321
Permanent Establishment (PE) in India - Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - assessee is a non-resident corporate entity and a tax resident of Italy - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the assessee brought on record all material and evidences to establish that it does not have any PE in India. As it appears from the respective orders of the departmental authorities, without dealing with the submissions of the assessee and evidences brought on record through proper reasoning or by bringing any contrary material to controvert them, the departmental authorities have merely followed their earlier decision without making any effort to look into the specific facts of the impugned assessment year.
The specific averment of the assessee regarding vacation of office premises at AIFACS building and no visit by expatriates in India during the year, have not been controverted by the departmental authorities by any specific factual finding.
As decided in BLACKSTONE CAPITAL PARTNERS (SINGAPORE) VI FDI THREE PTE. LTD. [2023 (2) TMI 35 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Assessing Officer cannot merely do a cut and paste job for reopening the assessment without independent application of mind or verification or investigation. This decided squarely applies to the facts of the present appeal, as the departmental authorities have merely followed the decision taken by them and higher appellate authorities in assessee’s cases in past assessment years without independent application of mind to the facts brought on record by the assessee or making proper verification/investigation of the evidences.
The evidences brought on record by the assessee remain uncontroverted. When the evidences brought on record by the assessee are before the departmental authorities, it is the duty of the departmental authorities to examine them on merits and thereafter, either to accept them or to reject them with proper reasoning by bringing on record contrary material/evidence. In the facts of the present appeal, the departmental authorities have failed to undertake such exercise. Therefore, in our view, it has to be concluded that the departmental authorities have not found anything amiss or adverse in the facts and material brought on record by the assessee.
Thus as concluded that the assessee did not have any PE, either fixed place PE or dependent agent PE, in India in the year under consideration. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1320
Process amounting to manufacture or not - activity of packing/repacking and affixing logo and MRP on the package of parts/components of Backhoe Loaders, Cranes, Forklifts and Compactors - Matter referred to Larger Bench due to disagreement between Chandigarh and Mumbai Bench.
Whether (i) Wheeled Tractor Loader Backhoe and Hydra Cranes, (ii) Hydraulic Excavator Loader (Backhoe Loaders); (iii) Hydraulic Loader (Wheel Loading Shovel/Shovel Loaders); (iv) Road Rollers (Compactors) are "automobiles‟ because only then can excise duty be levied on packing or repacking of parts, components and assemblies of these goods?
HELD THAT:- There was disagreement between Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal and Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal for which the matter was referred to Larger Bench by order dated 01.08.2016.
The earth moving machines involved in the present appeals are not "automobiles‟. It would not be appropriate to borrow the meaning of the word "automobile‟ or „motor vehicle‟ under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 merely because the word "automobile‟ has not been defined in the Central Excise Act, Central Excise Tariff Act or the Notifications issued by the Central Government. In such a situation, it would be appropriate to refer to the dictionaries to find out a general sense in which the word "automobile‟ is understood in common parlance. Automobiles, therefore, are conveyances for transportation of passengers and goods on road as also been understood by the department in the various Circulars issued from time to time. Serial no. 100A inserted in the Third Schedule w.e.f. 29.04.2010 is prospective and likewise serial no. 109 inserted in notification no. 49/2008 by notification no. 19/2010 dated 29.04.2010 issued under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, is prospective in nature.
The reference made to the Larger Bench is, accordingly, answered in the following manner:
(i) As the word "automobile‟ has not been defined in the Central Excise Act, the Central Excise Tariff Act or the Notifications issued by the Central Government, it would be permissible to refer to the dictionaries to find out the general sense in which the word is understood in common parlance and it will not be appropriate to refer to the definition of the word "automobile‟ occurring in the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; and
(ii) The amendment made in the Third Schedule to the Central Excise Act by Finance Act, 2011 w.e.f. 29.04.2010 by adding serial no. 100A to the Third Schedule is prospective in nature.
The appeals may now be placed for hearing before the Division Bench.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1319
Condonation of delay of six years in filing petition - sufficient reasons for delay or not - HELD THAT:- Such inordinate delay in filing the writ petition without any convincing and cogent reason is not entertainable and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1318
Recovery of refund made erroneously - Jurisdiction - proper officer to issue SCN - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice dated 17.04.2023 set aside making it clear that proper officer shall hold consultation with the petitioner if he intends to issue fresh show cause notice i.e., pre show cause notice consultation. All contentions are kept open.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1317
Cancellation of Customs Broker License - violation of provisions of Regulations 10(d), (w) & (m) of Customs Broker License Regulations, 2018 - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and also the show–cause notice and the Order–in–Original. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the limited reasons, as set out in the impugned order, it is opined that with all the issues arising in this proceedings including issue of question No.2, as noted, requires reconsideration of the Tribunal. What is noted from the order is that the Tribunal ought to have examine all the issues which had fallen for consideration in the Respondent’s Appeal, and, the contentions, as raised by the Appellant in that regard, and, after examining such issues, and by recording appropriate reasons, the Appeal ought to have been adjudicated.
The Appeal is disposed off by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Tribunal by restoring the Appeal.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1316
Denial of deduction u/s.80P - interest income earned from the deposits with other cooperative banks - HELD THAT:- As seen that the assessee is a co-operative society and earned interest income from the deposits with other Co-operative Banks.
The extant issue is no more res integra in view of the catena of decisions delivered including the Rena Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.[2022 (1) TMI 419 - ITAT PUNE] holding that though co-operative banks, other than primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank, are not eligible for deduction pursuant to insertion of section 80P(4) w.e.f. 1.4.2007, but this provision does not dent the otherwise eligibility u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act of a co-operative society on interest income on investments/deposits parked with a cooperative bank, which is a registered co-operative society as per section 2(19) of the Act, defining co-operative society to mean a cooperative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 or under any law for the time being in force.
The payer of interest is also a Co-operative society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. We overturn the impugned order and direct to grant deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act on the amount of interest earned from various cooperative banks. Assessee appeal is allowed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1315
Seeking release of petitioner from illegal detention - Territorial Jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- Once the order of remand has been passed by the competent court at Panchkula, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to approach the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging the order of remand. Any order passed by this court once an order of remand has been passed by Panchkula Court would be improper.
As regards informing this court on 09.06.2023 with regard to pendency of the FIR 0006/2023 dated 17.04.2023 and second ECIR being 17/2023 is concerned, the said submission would be relevant while challenging the order of remand dated 09.06.2023 passed by the Panchkula court.
Application dismissed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1314
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - addition u/s 80P - interest income earned on the investment of surplus money - HELD THAT:- As decided in Lokmangal Nagri Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit [2022 (12) TMI 355 - ITAT PUNE] error in the assessment order should be one that it is not debatable or plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim, took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an ‚erroneous‛. In the present case, we find that admittedly the interest income was earned from the cooperative banks, the cooperative bank is also a specie of cooperative society, therefore, the interest income earned by the cooperative society from the cooperative banks qualifies for deduction u/s 80(P)(2)(d) of the Act. Such interest also qualifies for exemption u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) as held by the Co-ordinate Bench of Pune Tribunal in the case of Nashik Road Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Limited [2021 (12) TMI 1259 - ITAT PUNE]
Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the order of revision passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stand allowed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1313
Condonation of delay - Delay of 1639 days - HELD THAT;- As basically the appeal has been filed after huge days of the ld. CIT’s order but almost one and a half year is attributable to COVID period, i.e. 15.3.2020 till 2.11.2021. This appeal has been presented before the Tribunal on 2.11.2021. If credit of number of days allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in [2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER] regarding cognizance for extension of limitation, even then there is substantial delay at the part of the assessee but we are of the view that the delay is for sufficient and reasonable cause. Moreover, making the appeal time barred has not been used by the assessee as a tactics to avoid the litigation with the Revenue because such strategy would not give any benefit to the assessee in this type of litigation. Therefore, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit.
Ex-parte appeal decided by assessee - CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without considering the merits of the case as the assessee could not attend the hearing before the ld. CIT(A) on the dates fixed for hearings - HELD THAT:- We find that the ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal ex-parte as the assessee could not be served the notices of fixing dates for hearing due to change of address. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present his case on merit. Accordingly, we restored to the appeal back to the file of the AO to decide the same after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1312
Seeking permission to withdraw the writ petition - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to file a fresh writ petition challenging the explanation inserted vide notification dated 7th March, 2019 to Clause 7.5 sub-clause (aa)(v) and also to challenge the order of the High Power Committee as contained in memo no.393 dated 17th February, 2023.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1311
Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P - return was processed by the CPC, Bangalore u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, denying the deduction claimed u/s 80P for the reason that the return of income was not filed with the due date - HELD THAT:- It is not in question that section 80AC of the I.T. Act, as amended by Finance Act, 2018, stipulated that for claiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act, the return of income was required to be filed before the due date, as prescribed by section 139(1) and in the present case, the return was filed belatedly.
It was only by the amendment to section 143(1) (a)(v) brought in by Finance Act, 2021, that the CPC can be said have been vested, exercising powers u/s 143(1)(a), to make disallowance on the ground of belated return. Prior to that, as per the un-amended provisions, the AO could disallow a claim u/s 143(1) (a) only on the grounds of arithmetical error or that the Assessee had made an incorrect claim, etc.
Reference, in this regard, may be had to ‘Fatehraj Singhvi & Ors. [2016 (9) TMI 964 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] It goes without saying that in the absence of enabling powers, no disallowance can be made. As such, enabling provisions being absent, the CPC did not have the jurisdiction to make the disallowance in question, in the order u/s 143(1) of the Act. For this, we find support from the decision of ‘The Lanjani Cooperative Agri Service Society Ltd., VPO Lanjani, Kangra (HP) [2022 (9) TMI 345 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] as held admittedly the provision enabling the AO to pass an order relying upon sub-clause (5) of Section 143(1)(a) was not on the Statute for 2018-19 assessment year. Accordingly, for the detailed reasons hereinabove, setting aside the impugned order, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1310
Levy of penalty on appellant - CENVAT Credit, interest and penalty against the main party having been dropped - HELD THAT:- In view of penalty proceeding as well as reversal of CENVAT Credit having been dropped against the main party. The present penalty against this appellant does not survive. The impugned order is therefore not sustainable to that extent.
Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1309
Bogus Long-term capital loss in trading of shares - onus to prove - As part of larger scheme, whereby, the price of shares of the certain penny stock companies were rigged and there were bogus long-term capital loss were provided to certain parties acted as exit provider and booked corresponding losses which were set off against other business income of companies/persons - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA Steelin the case of “PCIT v/s NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. [2019 (3) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT] has taken note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the the land mark case of “Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif [1963 (2) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT] and“Roshan Di Hatti [1977 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] playing down the proposition that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on the assessee.
Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction, and credit- worthiness, then the AO must conduct an inquiry, and call for more details before invoking Section 68. If the Assessee is not able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the nature and source, of the investments made, it is open to the Revenue to hold that it is the income of the assessee, and there would be no further burden on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source.
The facts on the file itself show that there was meeting of minds of the entry operators and the share brokers and exit providers. The price rigging was done by giving benefit to various subscribers with connivance of share brokers and the motive was to convert their unaccounted money into tax exempt long-term capital gains and for that purpose, there were certain persons chosen as exit providers who would buy shares when the share prices would be at its peak and those exit providers thereafter would suffer losses on account of fall in the price of the shares. This specific fact on the file shows that the exit providers were already chosen to execute the plan. The motive was to give the benefit of bogus long-term capital gains to various beneficiaries and to make that plan foolproof, the exit providers were already chosen with a pre-determined planning as to at what stage the beneficiaries of bogus long-term capital gains would be given exit. That perhaps was not dependent upon chance exit providers willing to book bogus short-term capital loss. Neither the name of the assessee nor of his share broker is mentioned in the list of exit providers. The circumstances of this case do not suggest of unnatural and unrealistic human conduct. The Assessing Officer in this case has not pointed out any adverse evidence against the assessee. He has simply relied upon the investigation report which is a general investigation report.
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj &Ors. [2022 (6) TMI 670 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has considered the report and analysed the same vis-a-vis circumstantial evidences like the negligible financial worth of the companies whose shares were traded in, the unrealistic steep hike in the share prices as against the recessive market trend and the failure of the assessee to explain the commercial prudence for making such huge investments. The additions thus have been made on the basis of circumstantial evidences and considering the preponderance of probabilities.
Thus in the absence of any direct incriminating evidence against the assessee, the distinguishable and weak circumstantial evidence, in our view, do not suggest the preponderance of probability of the assessee being involved in price rigging of the scrips or being the predetermined and pre planned beneficiary of the devised scheme, therefore, the impugned additions are not warranted in this case, and the same are accordingly ordered to be deleted. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1308
Liability of Service Tax - differential amount of consideration and actual value of spare parts for the period prior to 01.07.2012 or not - value as per Rule 2A(i) (c) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006 or Rule 2A(ii) of the Rules? - extended period of limitation - penalty.
Whether the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax on the differential amount of consideration and actual value of spare parts for the period prior to 01.07.2012 or not? - HELD THAT:- It is a fact on record that maintenance and repair contracts were entered between appellant and TISCO is the composite contracts involving supply of goods as well as providing the service. In that circumstances, when there is a contract of supply of goods as well as services, the same was termed as ‘works contract’ and the same was taxable w.e.f. 01.06.2007 under the category of works contract services as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT]. Therefore, prior to 01.06.2007 the nature of activity undertaken by the appellant is correctly classifiable under works contract services and for the period prior to 01.06.2007 covered by the decision of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra) and not liable to pay Service Tax at all.
W.e.f. 01.06.2007, similar issue has come up before this Tribunal in the case of Xerox India Ltd. [2018 (3) TMI 1006 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] wherein this Tribunal has held that if service has been provided along with material and the value of material supplied cannot be vivisected, in that circumstances, appropriate classification of the service shall be works contract service and same is not taxable prior to 01.06.2007. Further it was held by this Tribunal that for the period post 01.06.2007, the maintenance and repairs and XGS services are classifiable under works contract service.
As it has been held that post 01.06.2006 also the activity of maintenance and repairs if provided along with material, in that circumstances the appropriate classification is under works contract service and demand under the category of maintenance and repair service is not sustainable. Therefore, prior to 01.07.2012, the appellant is not liable to pay Service Tax in question. Accordingly the demand for the period prior to 01.07.2012 confirmed by the impugned orders are set aside. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the Appellant.
Whether the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax on the value as per Rule 2A(i) (c) of the Service Tax Valuation Rules, 2006 or Rule 2A(ii) of the Rules? - HELD THAT:- Rule 2(1)(c) prescribed that where VAT/Sales Tax has been paid or payable on actual value of the property goods transferred in execution of works contract, then the such value adopted for the purpose of payment of Value Added Tax or Sales Tax shall be taken as the value of property goods transferred in execution of the said works contract for determination of the value of the service portion in execution of the contract under the clause which means if the actual value of goods transferred is available on which VAT has been paid, the same shall be excluded from the total value of works contract service and on remaining part of the value, the Service Tax is payable.
Admittedly, in the case in hand, the service has been classified under works contract service and the value of goods supplied is ascertainable on which they have paid VAT, therefore, the same has to be excluded from the value of works contract to ascertain the value of taxable service provided by the appellant. Rule 2A(c) of the Valuation Rules only applies in case the value of goods supplied was not determined under the Rule 2A of the Rules. But, in the case in hand, value of material supplied has already been ascertained and VAT has been paid thereon, in that circumstances, for the period post 01.07.2002, the taxable value is to be determined in terms of Rule 2A(i)(c) of the Valuation Rules, 2006, therefore this issue is also answered in favour of the Appellant.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case extended period of limitation is invocable or not? - HELD THAT:- As whole case is interpretation of the provisions of Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 and classification of the services therefore the extended period of limitation is not invocable in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the said issue is also answered in favour of the appellant.
Whether penalty can be imposed on the appellant or not? - HELD THAT:- In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no penalty is imposable on the appellant. Accordingly, same is answered in favour of the appellant.
All the issues have been answered in favour of the appellant - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1307
Interest on duty paid by way of supplementary invoices - period July 2005 to December 2009 - invocation of extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not - payment of duty on the strength of supplementary invoices was well within the knowledge of the department or not - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that payment of duty on the strength of supplementary invoices was well within the knowledge of the department at the time of filing of ER-1 return showing payment of duty on the strength of supplementary invoices, in that circumstances, the extended period of limitation is not invocable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, the demand of interest beyond the normal period of limitation is set aside.
Also, it is noted that the demand of interest within the period of limitation, the appellant has already paid, therefore, nothing survives. Hence, the demand of payment of interest within the period of limitation is confirmed.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1306
Revision u/s 263 - Having issued notice u/s 153A and considered the return of income filed in response AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153A by making addition denying the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) - whether any interference could be made with the concluded assessments while assessing the income under section 153A of the Act, when no incriminating material was found? - HELD THAT:- As decided in ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD. [2023 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT] in complete agreement with KABUL CHAWLA [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT]no addition can be made in respect of the completed assessments in absence of any incriminating material.
Thus we hold that since no incriminating material found in the case of assessee for the assessment year 2013-14, the concluded assessment cannot be disturbed and the addition made by Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A) cannot be upheld. We accordingly allow the appeal of assessee.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1305
Valuation of imported goods - old and used worn clothing - restricted goods or not - classifiable under Tariff Item No.63090000 of the First Schedule of the Act or not - enhancement of value - HELD THAT:- This issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of VENUS TRADERS, RAINBOW INTERNATIONAL, AL-YASEEN ENTERPRISES, GLOBE INTERNATIONAL, KRISHNA EXPORT CORPORATION, PRECISION IMPEX, BMC SPINNERS PVT. LTD., SHIVAM TRADERS, LEELA WOOLEN MILLS, M.U. TEXTILES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) MUMBAI [2018 (11) TMI 625 - CESTAT MUMBAI], wherein this Tribunal has held that The failure of the original authority to comply with the direction in remand to disclose the margin of profit that prompted the fine and penalty, the matter would normally have to be remitted back by another remand order. However, the paucity of evidence and the negligible scope for ascertainment at this stage deters us from doing so.
The redemption fine and penalty imposed on the respondents by the adjudicating authority is sufficient to meet the end of justice. Therefore, the redemption fine and penalty confirmed by the adjudicating authority are upheld.
Impugned order upheld - appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1304
Valuation of imported goods - old and used worn clothing, completely fumigated - restricted goods or not - enhancement of declared value - HELD THAT:- This issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of VENUS TRADERS, RAINBOW INTERNATIONAL, AL-YASEEN ENTERPRISES, GLOBE INTERNATIONAL, KRISHNA EXPORT CORPORATION, PRECISION IMPEX, BMC SPINNERS PVT. LTD., SHIVAM TRADERS, LEELA WOOLEN MILLS, M.U. TEXTILES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) MUMBAI [2018 (11) TMI 625 - CESTAT MUMBAI], wherein this Tribunal has held that The failure of the original authority to comply with the direction in remand to disclose the margin of profit that prompted the fine and penalty, the matter would normally have to be remitted back by another remand order. However, the paucity of evidence and the negligible scope for ascertainment at this stage deters us from doing so.
Thus, the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the respondents by the adjudicating authority is sufficient to meet the end of justice. Therefore, the redemption fine and penalty confirmed by the adjudicating authority are upheld.
There are no infirmity in the impugned order and the same are upheld - appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1303
Additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia), after giving effect to the respective earlier assessment year, despite not claimed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- We find that identical issue came up for adjudication before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Ys. 2013-14 and 2014-15 wherein the Coordinate Bench vide its order [2023 (1) TMI 1284 - ITAT DELHI] has disallowed the assessee’s claim by holding the additional claim as mandatory under Explanation 5 to Section 32(1)(iia) - AO has rightly allowed the additional depreciation in this case even without its claim by the assessee. The appeal of the assessee on this ground is dismissed.
TDS on exploration & development expenditure - addition u/s 40(i)(ia) - CIT(A) deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2023 (1) TMI 1284 - ITAT DELHI] CIT(A) has categorically held that the assessee (CEHL) has furnished tax audit report of the operator CEIL perusal of which shows that TDS requirement have been duly complied with the operator. hence, the disallowance made by the AO on account of exploration & development expenditure per se and on account of infraction of provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) are liable to be deleted. The order of the Id. CIT(A) on this ground is affirmed.
Disallowance of time cost expenses - Ground stood allowed by CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- As in own case [2023 (1) TMI 1284 - ITAT DELHI] as affirmed the CIT(A)’s order in allowed the assessee’s claim of time cost expenses, inter alia, by observing that for making a disallowance under section 40A of the Act, the onus is on the AO to establish that the payments made by the assessee were excessive and unreasonable. In the present case, the AO made disallowances without discussing even the nature of expenses and its reasonableness. Hence, the disallowance proposed to be made is bad in law and deserves to be deleted. Ergo, the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby affirmed.
Disallowance of over head expenditure - addition allowed by CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- We find that identical issue came up in assessee’s own case [2023 (1) TMI 1284 - ITAT DELHI] affirmed the CIT(A)’s order in allowed the assessee’s claim of overhead expenditure as stating that AO has not given the reasoning as to how these expenses are hit by the provisions of section 44C and has That the AO has not given the reasoning as to how these expenses are hit by the provisions of section 44C and has simply disallowed these expenses on the basis of the stand taken by the Assessing Officer in earlier assessment years.
Revenue appeal dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
