|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 433132 Records
-
2025 (6) TMI 255
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Consolidation of Show Cause Notice (SCN) proceedings for multiple financial years - denial of Petitioner’s right to cross-examine certain third parties - violation of principles of natural justice - it was held by High Court that 'The Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner ought to avail of its appellate remedy in accordance with law in respect of both orders dated 20th January, 2025 and 29th January, 2025 including the demand raised on 1st February, 2025 - Petitioner is, accordingly, permitted to approach the Appellate Authority by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act within thirty days.'
HELD THAT:- This Special Leave Petition is disposed off by reserving liberty to the petitioner herein to avail the alternative remedy and urge all contentions that are open to the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. It is needless to observe that if all contentions that are available to the petitioner herein are urged before the Appellate Authority, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
-
2025 (6) TMI 254
Levy of penalty u/s 129(3) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017 - though the e-way bill, was being carried, the part-B of the same was not filled up based on which, notice was issued to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the order impugned passed by Assistant Commissioner, Sector 5 (Mobile Squad 5), Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh would reveal that except for noticing violation of provisions of Rule 138 on account of non-filling up of part-B of eway bill, not a word has been indicated pertaining to any attempt to evade tax.
In view of the series of orders passed by this Court laying down that unless an attempt is made to evade tax and a finding in this regard is recorded, mere non-filling of part-B of e-way bill would not attract penalty under Section 129 of the Act, the order impugned passed by the respondents cannot be sustained.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 253
Seeking grant of bail - large scale evasion of GST - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that the case involves documentary evidence only, however, it is also apparent that the other co-accused persons are evading the notices, and in such circumstances, it would be premature to allow the present application, as the possibility of the applicant tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out.
Application dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 252
Admission on bail after having spent only 13 days in custody - huge amounts of tax evasion - claiming fraudulent IGST refund - HELD THAT:- The learned Trial Court, in the opinion of this Court, rightly noted that for the investigation in regard to allegations of evasion of GST, claim of false Input Tax Credit and IGST refund, the investigation agency has to only look at the records of the GST Department, Bank apart from other material and ample power has been given to the Investigating Officer to seize the said records. It was further rightly observed that the respondent is a permanent resident of Delhi and nothing has been placed on record to show his previous involvement or that he is a habitual tax offender.
On being pointedly asked, it is informed that despite the fact that the investigation was taken up by the Department way back in the year 2020, no criminal complaint has been filed till date. Thus, even otherwise, had the respondent been in custody, he would have been entitled for default bail on the department not completing the investigation. It is not alleged anywhere that the respondent, pursuant to being admitted to bail, had misused the liberty.
Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 251
Dismissal of appeal by a one line non-reasoned order on the ground of delay in filing of Appeal - violation of principles of natural justice - whether uploading of summary show-cause notice in portal would suffice or not? - HELD THAT:- Co-ordinate Bench has taken a decision uploading of show-cause notice in portal would not suffice registered post under acknowledgment and other modes of communication is required to be adhered. The same issue is involved in the present lis to the extent summary of show-cause notice dated 11.08.2023 has been uploaded in a portal, resultantly petitioner was unable to file his reply. Thereafter, the concerned authorities have proceeded to pass consequential orders.
For non-compliance of Section 169 of Bihar Goods and Service Act, 2017, impugned orders dated 20.09.2023 & 08.05.2024 vide Annexure-P/15 & Annexure-P/19 are set aside. Matter is remanded to the concerned authority to issue a fresh summary show-cause notice to the petitioner after providing ample opportunity of reply/hearing and proceed to pass speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner within a reasonable period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.
Petition allowed in part.
-
2025 (6) TMI 250
Condonation of delay of 22 days in filing appeal - justifiable reasons for the delay provided or not - HELD THAT:- Since the advance ruling application was rejected and the appellate authority needs to decide the question on appellate side and the delay was only 22 days, which was' admittedly, within the condonable period, we deem it proper to set aside the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 and direct the appellate authority to number the appeal and decide it on merits in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 249
Cancellation of GST registration by Sales Tax Officer - appeal dismissed on the ground that the same was barred by limitation - invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- This case is apparently similar and identical to SHEIKH MOHAMMAD YOUSUF VERSUS UNION TERRITORY OF J&K AND ORS. [2024 (8) TMI 893 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT] and therefore, this petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority for registration of his GST number within a period of seven days from today. The Competent Authority shall restore GST number of the petitioner immediately, subject to the completion of all requisite formalities. The petitioner undertakes to file return and deposit the taxes and penalty along with the interest within a period of seven days from the restoration of GST number of the petitioner. In the event the needful is not done by the petitioner within stipulated period, suspended registration of the petitioner shall be deemed to have been restored.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 248
Levy of GST - works contracts where the service provisions were made prior to 01.07.2017 - authorities have jurisdiction to issue notices or take coercive action under the GST Act from 01.07.2017 onwards or not - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the material on record would indicate that insofar as prayers are concerned, the same are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Chandrashekaraiah and Others Vs State of Karnataka and Others [2023 (6) TMI 93 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], which was followed by this Court in the case of M G Arun Kumar Vs State of Karnataka [2023 (8) TMI 1531 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and the said prayers deserves to be disposed off in terms of the said judgments.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 247
Challenge to Exhibit-P1 order of determination as well as Exhibit-P2 order of the Appellate Authority - disallowance of ITC - contention raised by the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex v. Union of India and Others [2024 (12) TMI 399 - KERALA HIGH COURT], wherein it was observed that the Input Tax Credit available in the electronic credit ledger should be considered as a pool of funds designated for different types of taxes, such as CGST, IGST and SGST, which represents a wallet with different compartments - HELD THAT:- On an appreciation of the contentions urged and on a perusal of the impugned orders, this Court is of the view that the matter requires reconsideration in the light of the principles laid down in Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex’s case.
Exhibit-P1 and Exhibit-P2 orders of determination are set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the principles laid down in Rejimon Padickapparambil Alex’s case.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 246
Pure services or not - applicant provides services to the Central Government, State Government or Union Territory or local authority - said services are in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under article 243G or to a municipality under article 243W of the Constitution of India.
HELD THAT:- The appellant has provided a supply of pure services for consideration. However, the issue at hand is the identity of the supplier and the recipient of this supply.
The person who would be responsible for paying the consideration would be the initial default criterion for identifying the recipient. In addition, the recipient of services is irrelevant; rather, the issue is who is responsible for paying for them.
It is clear from the case records that the PHED has awarded the contract to Webel Technology Limited for the provision of manpower services for the JJM project. Therefore, it is evident that the work order was received by WTL from the Public Health Engineering Department of the Government of West Bengal. Subsequently, WTL has contracted the appellant to supply the aforementioned manpower services. Therefore, PHED would not be accountable for the appellant's payment; rather, WTL would be responsible for paying the appellant for the services they provided.
There is no ambiguity regarding the meaning of the phrase "Pure Services (excluding works contract service or other composite supplies involving the supply of any goods) provided to the Central Government, State Government, Union Territory, or local authority" as it is defined in entry sl. no. 3 of the CGST Rate Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) and corresponding WBGST Rate Notification No. 1136-F.T., both dated 28.06.2017. This term refers to a direct supply to the Central Government, State Government, Union Territory, or local authority, without the involvement of any other supplier, as has been the case in this instance.
As the appellant has failed to satisfy the second condition, it is refrained from further examining the admissibility of the condition mentioned under serial number (iii) in paragraph 14, which pertains to whether the aforementioned services are in relation to any function entrusted to a Panchayat under article 243G or to a municipality under article 243W of the Constitution of India, as it is mandatory to satisfy all three conditions as previously mentioned in paragraph 14 in order to qualify a service for exemption under serial number 3 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Cenral Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended.
Conclusion - The supply of services under question would not qualify to be an exempted supply under serial number 3 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, as amended.
-
2025 (6) TMI 245
Addition u/s 56 (2) (viib) - FMV of the Assessee’s equity by any acceptable method - AO proceeded to determine the FMV of the shares issued by the Assessee at its book value and concluded that the same was in negative - there were certain disclaimers in the valuation report furnished by the Chartered Accountant which AO found rendered the determination of FMV unreliable - ITAT deleted addition - HELD THAT:- The Assessee had valued the unquoted equity shares held by the Assessee in SAFL by DCF method. The same is permissible under Rule 11UA (2) of the Rules.
Assessee had also drawn our attention to the ICAI Valuation Standard 301 Business Valuation, which also indicates that investment in a subsidiary could also be valued using the DCF method as was done in the present case.
ITAT had found that the disclaimers set out by the expert in the valuation report were general disclaimers and are common in all such reports furnished by experts as they are founded on the data as provided by the entity. The expert report could not be rejected on the ground of such disclaimers without the AO pointing out any material error in the data as used by the expert. No substantial questions of law.
-
2025 (6) TMI 244
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice beyond the period of four years - period of limitation for reopening - interpretation and applicability of the Explanation to Section 149 and Explanation 4 to Section 147 introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, clarifying the retrospective effect of the amendments - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Explanation to Section 149 of the Act, which was introduced by virtue of Finance Act, 2012 (Act 23 of 2012) expressly clarified that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (3) of the amended provisions would also be applicable for “any assessment year” beginning on or before 1st day of April 2012. The import of using the word “any” is not restrictive.
It is material note that Section 147 of the Act was also amended by Finance Act, 2012 (Act 23 of 2012) and Explanation 4 was added. The said explanation reads as under:
Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section, as amended, by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012.”
As noted above, the decision in Brahm Datt v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others [2018 (12) TMI 832 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has neither construed the import of the Explanation added to Section 149 of the Act nor the import of Explanation 4 added to Section 147 of the Act as were in force at the material time. The decision in Additional Commissioner (Legal) & Anr. v. Jyoti Traders & Anr [1998 (11) TMI 531 - SUPREME COURT] is also instructive. Additionally, the notes to clauses to the Finance Bill, 2012, which we find are material to to construing the legislative intent behind the amendments to Sections 147 and 149 of the Act, were not brought to the notice of this Court in Brahm Datt [supra]. Thus, the view expressed in the said decision may require consideration by a larger bench of this court.
List on 25.07.2025.
The matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice to constitute a larger bench.
-
2025 (6) TMI 243
Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - receipts of the assessee from Indian customers - whether taxable as Fee for Technical Services as per India -USA DTAA as well as Section 9 (1) (vii) of the Act?
HELD THAT:- The issue involved in the present case is covered by the several decisions of this court including CIT v. Relx Inc. [2024 (3) TMI 105 - DELHI HIGH COURT] We find no infirmity with the view of the learned ITAT in regard to taxability of repair and maintenance charges as FIS.
Corporate allocation charges - ITAT had accepted the Assessee’s case that it was not rendering any services, which absolved the recipients from availing similar services in future. The learned ITAT also unequivocally stated that none of its employees had visited India for rendering any training.
The findings as returned by the learned ITAT in respect of allocation of charges are essentially fact centric. We also do not find any material to indicate that the Assessee had received any amount for transfer of skill, knowledge, knowhow or process to its associate entity in India which could be construed as FIS within the meaning of Article 12 (4) of the India-USA DTAA.
No substantial question of law.
-
2025 (6) TMI 242
Addition emanating from the seized diary notings only on the Solitary premise that the same were not reflected in the books of accounts of the appellant - Addition u/s 69A - HELD THAT:- The questions whether additions can be made on the basis of documents or diaries is necessary to be construed by the nature of the entries or the material recorded in those diaries. In the present case, the facts as found, indicate that the seized diaries contained recordings of receipts, which pertained to booking of flats.
The additions made in the present case were not solely on the basis of the diaries alone but also on the basis of reconciling the material as found in the diaries and the formal books of accounts maintained by the Assessees.
The findings, essentially, are that cheque payments for booking of flats were reflected in the diaries, and also reflected in the formal books of accounts. However, certain cash entries, which were received for the said bookings, did not – for obvious reasons – find mention in the formal books of accounts, which were maintained using the accounting software, ‘tally’. Thus, the fundamental premise on which the contentions advanced on behalf of the Assessee are founded – that the addition has been made on the basis of random documents on a standalone basis – fails to take into account the exercise conducted by the Income Tax Authorities in unearthing the unexplained receipts.
There is also no absolute proposition that diaries found cannot be construed as books of accounts. If accounts are maintained in a diary, even though the accounts may be partial, the same, in given circumstances may qualify as books of accounts.
It is apparent from the plain language of Section 2 (12A) of the Act, the definition of ‘books of accounts’ is couched in wide language. The use of the word ‘includes’ also indicates that the expressions ‘books’ or ‘books of accounts’ are required to be construed in an expansive manner.
The plain meaning of the books of accounts would obviously be books where accounts or some part of thereof are entered. It is not necessary that the books be maintained in physical forms, there could be also soft files, which would also, in given circumstances, be construed as books of accounts. In the facts of this case, where the diaries were found to record receipts of bookings of flats, it would be erroneous to construe the diaries as a random paper or dumb documents that did not reveal any information. No substantial question of law arises
-
2025 (6) TMI 241
Eligibility for deduction u/s 80IB - inclusion/exclusion of terrace / balcony in the form of open to sky or portico / porch area without walls while computing the built-up area for the purpose of determining the eligibility for deduction - HELD THAT:- If we take the literal meaning of “built-up” area as is defined Clause (14) (a) of Section 80-IB a built-up area includes balcony and projection. If on the inclusion of balcony and projections, if any, and if the total built-up area exceeds 1,500 sq.ft., the assessee would not be entitled for deduction Section 80-IB of the Act.
Admittedly, in the case of the assessee, if it is only a projection or a balcony there can be no doubt that under the definition of “built-up” area, projections and balconies are also included and by no stretch of imagination those can be excluded from computation of built-up area.
Nonetheless, from the drawing of the construction which is available along with the Assessment Order which is marked as Annexure-I, the portion which is being sought to be excluded is an open terrace and a portico. Both “open terrace” and an “open portico” has nowhere been mentioned to be a part of the built-up area.
In the said circumstances, relying upon the decision of Amaltas Associates [2016 (10) TMI 359 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] a balcony certainly would not be excluded treating it as “open terrace”. So also, an open terrace can never be termed to be a balcony or a projection. Likewise, an open portico in front of the residential unit which is otherwise on the outside part of the residential unit also cannot be brought within the purview of an inner measurement of a residential unit.
Whether excluding the open terrace and the area of the portico, and whether the built-up is exceeding 1,500 sq.ft. or not (if it still exceeds 1,500 sq.ft.), the assessee would not be entitled for the benefit as is otherwise enshrined u/s 80-IB? - If the built-up area falls within the 1,500 sq.ft. excluding the open space in the portico area, the appellants are entitled for the benefit u/s 80-IB of the Act.
From the Annexure-I attached to the assessment order, which is a drawing of the construction area and which is sought to be excluded is an open terrace and a portico, and for the reasons stated above, an open terrace and a portico cannot be brought within the ambit of the definition of an “built-up” area as is defined under Section 80-IB (14) (a) of the Act, the definition that was inserted vide amendment that took place w.e.f. 01.04.2005. Moreover, from the drawing itself, it is evidently clear that the two spaces i.e. the open terrace and also the portico is an area which is otherwise totally open and exposed. It could not be under any stretch of imagination be brought or considered to be an area within the inner measurement of a residential unit. Since it is an open space which cannot be brought within the purview of inner measurement of the residential unit, the said two areas i.e. the open terrace and the portico has to be excluded from computation of the built-up area entitling the appellant the benefit that which is enshrined under Section 80-IB of the Act.
Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 240
Reopening of assessment - purchase of immovable property in India by an NRI, without filing an income tax return - books relating to the income earned in USA were not produced - HELD THAT:- Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal Vs. S.P. Chaliha and Ors. [1971 (1) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT] held that the AO must have a prima-facie ground for taking action under Section 148 of the Act and a need for further enquiry cannot be equated for reason for issuing notice under Section 148.
Apart from the information of petitioner having purchased an immovable property in India during the relevant year, there is no information with the department to suggest that the income having been earned by petitioner in India or liable to be taxed under the Act had escaped assessment. No such averment is there either in the show cause notice or in the impugned order. It is clear that preliminary inquiry can be held by AO prior to issuance of notice under Section 148A(b). Rather the AO while acting under the Act wanted to verify the source of income in USA. Once the source of investment was duly explained and it was established that it originated in foreign country there was no basis for the AO to proceed under Section 148. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 239
Income from other sources - interest income earned from loans to staff and other loans - assessee is engaged in the business of electricity distribution - HELD THAT:- As decided in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited. [2020 (3) TMI 1468 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] interest earned by the assessee was directly related to the business of the assessee, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises.
In case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd. [2022 (7) TMI 1442 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, after considering the decision of this Court, has held that the interest on staff loans and advances are part of the ‘business income' only. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 238
Allowability of expenditure of license fee paid to the assessee - license fee paid for use of goodwill and the name "Remfry & Sagar" - HELD THAT:-This issue is squarely covered by the order passed by the Hon’ble ITAT as well as confirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court [2025 (2) TMI 194 - DELHI HIGH COURT] for assessment year 2009-10 [2016 (11) TMI 1236 - ITAT DELHI] it is the principal purpose test which would be determinative of whether the expenditure was one which could have been disallowed.
We find that the reference to a percentage of the revenue earned by the law practise was intended to principally provide for a basis to compute the consideration liable to be paid for use of goodwill and the utilisation of the name. The primary purpose of referring to the total billing of the law firm was to provide a firm, definite and fixed basis to compute the consideration liable to be paid for use of goodwill. The consideration so paid is thus clearly not liable to be characterised as a sharing of revenue derived from the practise but fundamentally for the exercise of the right to exploit and derive advantage from goodwill.
The linking of the consideration for the aforesaid purpose to the revenue earned by the firm only constituted a basis and a measure to determine the consideration that was to be paid. The arrangement was clearly not driven by a motive to share revenues earned by the legal firm. It was purely consideration paid for use of the goodwill attached to the name "Remfry & Sagar". We thus find ourselves unable to accept the argument of the appellant that the Bar Council of India Rules were violated.
The sheet anchor of the submissions advanced by Mr. Rai was the judgment of the Supreme Court in Apex Laboratories [2022 (2) TMI 1114 - SUPREME COURT] and where the "freebies" provided to legal practitioners was found to be an expenditure incurred for a purpose prohibited by law. In our considered opinion, the reliance placed on Apex Laboratories is clearly misplaced since the said judgment turned upon Regulation 6.8 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 and which clearly prohibited a medical practitioner from receiving gifts, travel expenses, hospitality as well as cash or other monetary grants. It was that prohibition in law which was found to have been violated. In view of all of the above, we find ourselves unconvinced of the challenge that stands raised in these appeals. Decided in favour of assessee.
Ad-hoc disallowance being 10% of the foreign travelling expenses - When AO has not disputed the books of account qua the expenditure claimed by the assessee in any manner, ad hoc disallowance to the extent of 10% of the foreign travel expenses is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Decided in favour of assessee.
Claim of TDS credit - It is observed that CIT(A), while dealing with this issue, has clearly held that since the corresponding income has already been offered to tax by the assessee and also assessed by the AO in this assessment year, the assessee was entitled to TDS credit in terms of Rule 37BA(3) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 r/w Section 199 of the Act. We find no infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A) and, while upholding the same, we dismiss this ground of the Revenue’s appeal.
-
2025 (6) TMI 237
Penalty imposed u/s 270A - addition on estimated basis being 10% of income @ 7500 per tempo in 13 tempos whereas assessee was running 10 tempos owned by him - HELD THAT:- Order of penalty having been issued on the basis of addition made by the Ld. AO on estimating income of the assessee from running 13 more tempos at @ 10% per month, receipts x 12 months x 13 tempos, the same is found to be unsustainable in the eyes of law as already been decided [2025 (1) TMI 1565 - ITAT DELHI] respectfully relying upon the same the impugned penalty is found to be not sustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, quashed. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 236
Unsecured loan - Addition u/s 68 - AO has initiated the proceedings on the basis of information received from the Asstt. Director Of Income tax and case was selected for manual scrutiny - HELD THAT:- Additions were made only on the basis of alleging that the loan taken by the assessee from the M/s Aarti Securities are only accommodation entry. In the case in hand the amounts were paid by the parties through banking channels - assessee has not received any amount in cash and loan was repaid after deducting the TDS. The assessee has repaid the loan even before the assessment was reopened.
When the assessee takes the loan and repaid along with interest clearly shows that the transactions are genuine. Merely, because some operator has managed the affairs and all the transactions cannot be labelled as non-genuine. In the present case the assessee has submitted all the documents in support of the transaction before the Ld. AO and he has rejected the same on the basis that the assessee has obtained the accommodation entry while the transaction was made through banking channel. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
............
|
9911796707
