|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1734 Records
-
2018 (1) TMI 1719 - ITAT DELHI
Provision of warranty expenses - Lesser amount of warranty claims registered on the assessee - provision of warranty expenses have been made by the assessee @0.75% in earlier years, however, in Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 it was reduced to 0.5% - HELD THAT:- In the present case as per annexure- A it seems that assessee has made ad hoc provision on the sales as a fixed percentage. The ld CIT (A) has also allowed the claim of Rs 3.5 lakhs without giving any cogent reason. Further looking at the chart titled as Annexure A by the Ld. CIT (A) which shows that the amount claimed by the assessee in the profit and loss account is a net result of opening balances of the provision for warranty added thereto amount credited in provision for warranty account during the year and reduced by the provision utilized during the year for meeting the expenditure out of the opening balances and actual warranty expenses incurred during the year over and above provision utilization.
Assessee is entitled to the deduction of warranty expenses provided for, if it is made based on history and some scientific methodology but not on ad hoc basis. Therefore, we set aside the whole issue back to the file of the Ld. assessing officer with a direction to the assessee to provide the methodology of making provision of warranty expenditure which should be based on some scientific and historical basis and then grant deduction of the appropriate amount to the assessee in terms of the decision of Rotorok Controls India Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1718 - SUPREME COURT
Prayer to take any action taken by the Respondents or any order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal - HELD THAT:- Our present order does not debar the Petitioner to challenge the validity of composition of the National Company Law Tribunal and the validity or the constitutionality of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before this Court Under Article 32 of the Constitution.
SLP disposed off.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1717 - SUPREME COURT
Prohibition on the exhibition of the film, namely, Padmavat - seeking stay on notifications/orders prohibiting the exhibition of the film - When once a Certificate has been issued by the CBFC, the States can issue notifications or orders prohibiting exhibition of film in theatres? - HELD THAT:- The creative content is an insegregable aspect of Article 19(1) of the Constitution. Needless to emphasise, this right is not absolute. There can be regulatory measures. Regulatory measures are reflectible from the language employed Under Section 5B of the Act and the guidelines issued by the Central Government. Once the parliamentary legislation confers the responsibility and the power on a statutory Board and the Board grants certification, non-exhibition of the film by the States would be contrary to the statutory provisions and infringe the fundamental right of the Petitioners.
It has to be borne in mind, expression of an idea by any one through the medium of cinema which is a public medium has its own status under the Constitution and the Statute. There is a Censor Board under the Act which allows grant of certificate for screening of the movies - As advised at present once the Certificate has been issued, there is prima facie a presumption that the concerned authority has taken into account all the guidelines including public order.
It is directed that there shall be stay of operation of the notifications and orders issued by the Respondent-States and the other States are also restrained to issue notifications/orders in any manner prohibiting the exhibition - there are no hesitation in stating by way of repetition and without any fear of contradiction that it is the duty of the State to sustain the law and order situation whenever the film is exhibited, which would also include providing police protection to the persons who are involved in the film/in the exhibition of the film and the audience watching the film, whenever sought for or necessary.
Let the matter be listed on 26th March 2018 for final disposal.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1716 - ITAT DELHI
TP Adjustment - determining of ALP of transaction of payment of trademark fees paid by the taxpayer to its AE - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that since there is a direct nexus between the revenue earned by the taxpayer and the payment made by the taxpayer on account of royalty, the transaction of payment of royalty cannot be analyzed in isolation. Furthermore, the doctrine of benefit test applied by the TPO cannot be invoked as it is prerogative of the businessman to see if any service is beneficial to the promotion of its business or not. So, consequently, the AO is directed to delete the adjustment made on account of ALP of international transaction of payment of trademark fees.
TP adjustment of Advertisement, Marketing and Sales Promotion (AMP) - HELD THAT:- As it is not in dispute that there is no change in the business model of the taxpayer so far as AMP expenses are concerned since AYs 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10. The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in taxpayer’s own case (supra) proceeded to hold that incurring of AMP expenses by the taxpayer is not an international transaction of brand building of Goodyear brand undertaken by the taxpayer with AE and as such, no adjustment can be made.
Netting off of export incentive from the cost of goods sold and set aside the issue of netting off of rebate/ discount from the cost of goods sold to the file of AO/TPO for verification of the claim in view of the decision rendered by the Tribunal for AY 2006-07 [2012 (12) TMI 1166 - ITAT DELHI] by providing an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer.
Disallowance of provision made by the taxpayer for replacement loss - taxpayer has not incurred expenditure on account of replacement of goods in the subsequent years; that the same is not ascertained and is contingent in nature - HELD THAT:- The taxpayer has filed complete details on the basis of past trends and experience of actual guarantee claims on a scientific and actual basis, we are of the considered view that provision for warranty made by the taxpayer is allowable one.
Disallowance being 30% of the total expenditure - taxpayer has incurred the said advertisement and publicity expenditure for brand building for the entities owning the brand - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that when the Bench has already held that the taxpayer has incurred advertisement expenses wholly for the purpose of business and profession, the same are required to be allowed in full. So, in the given circumstances, ad hoc disallowance of advertisement expenses incurred by the taxpayer is not permissible under law. So, AO is directed to delete the same accordingly.
Disallowance on account of shortfall on interest of provident fund - failure of the taxpayer to file clarification or supporting documents - HELD THAT:- When the provident fund dues are not deposited by the employer in time, the interest payable thereon would become part of the provident fund dues and section 43B of the Act would be attracted. However, when the taxpayer has actually paid the interest, section 43B would not be attracted and the taxpayer is entitled to claim deduction thereof. So, we are of the considered view that AO/DRP have erred in making disallowance allegedly on account of shortfall of interest of provident fund. Consequently, the AO is directed to allow the same after verifying the facts as to the payment of dues paid along with interest by the taxpayer.
Addition being the misc. charges and service tax written off out of misc. expenditure - expenditure were not supported by vouchers and the taxpayer has failed to prove that the expenditure were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business; that the taxpayer has failed to deduct tax at source on certain expenditure and that some of the expenditure are in the nature of capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, accounts of the taxpayer are audited by the statutory auditor, tax auditors as well as cost auditors which are substantiated with necessary documents. When the accounts of the taxpayer are duly audited by the statutory auditors and proves to be supported with documents discussed in preceding paras, the Income-tax authorities are not only required to accept auditor’s report but also to draw the proper inference from the same. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision rendered in the case of Jay Engineering Ltd. [1978 (2) TMI 94 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
When the taxpayer raised specific objection before the ld. DRP qua disallowance of the aforesaid expenses, the ld. DRP has issued specific direction to the AO to allow these expenses if the same are found to be genuine on filing necessary evidence in support of its claim by the taxpayer. When the accounts are audited and duly supported with evidences discussed in the preceding paras, the AO is to allow the same after verifying its genuineness and to proceed accordingly. Decided in favour of the taxpayer.
Disallowance being the provision for obsolete stocks and spares - it was only a provision and not an actual write off and on the ground that the taxpayer has failed to provide the basis and working of the provision of the obsolete stores and spares - HELD THAT:- The taxpayer has brought on record the complete details of obsolete stocks and spares, available - DRP directed the AO to allow the provision of obsolete stocks and spares in case the same has been scientifically worked out. However, the AO proceeded to disallow the same on the ground that the taxpayer has failed to produce the details of the stocks and spares written off. When the taxpayer has brought on record details of amount and items of slow moving article and the Revenue has not disputed that this system is being followed bonafidely by the taxpayer, the AO was required to follow the rule of consistency. So, in view of the matter, AO is directed to delete the disallowance on account of stores and spares written off after verifying the documents available.
Ad hoc disallowance being 50% of the salary of administrative staff of the taxpayer - as attributed to capital work-in-progress and was required to be capitalized along with capital work-in-progress - HELD THAT:- As taxpayer carried out the expansion of the existing business for which services of Managing Director and Plant Supervisor who have also monitored and ensured day-to-day running of the factory and production along with capital work-in-progress for expansion of the same unit were availed of, which satisfies the test of unity of control, interlacing of funds, common management etc. and as such, their salary to the extent of 50% capitalized because the salary drawn by them is revenue expenditure. Consequently, we order to delete the disallowance made by the AO and determine this ground in favour of the taxpayer.
Disallowance on account of stores and spares written off - details and supporting evidences of the written off stores and spares have not been furnished and the same was not verifiable with reference to physical disposal - HELD THAT:- When we examine profit and loss account of the taxpayer, it shows that the taxpayer is a growing company having gross sale of Rs. 1167 crores as on March 31, 2010 as against Rs. 980 crores in the earlier years with gross profit of Rs. 734 crores as against Rs. 329 crores in the previous year and in the given circumstances, to write off useless stores is a business decision of the management which cannot be questioned particularly when the accounts of the taxpayer are audited one with supporting evidence. The taxpayer has brought on record the complete details of the written off stores and spares,. So, disallowance made by the AO on account of stores and spares written off is not sustainable, hence disallowance is ordered to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1715 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Extended period of limitation - Short payment of duty - intent to evade tax - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed that the show cause notice invoked the extended period. That is beyond a normal period of one year. For the extended period to be invoked, there are certain pre-requisites and pre-conditions, which the Revenue has to satisfy in terms of the statutory provision, namely, section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The tribunal found from the factual matters that there were not one, but two audits and the second one was for the overlapping period. If during both, the Revenue could not trace out anything, which was held back by the assessee or was unable to unearth from the records the necessary materials to allege suppression, then, the invocation of the extended period was impermissible. There were no materials to indicate that there is any short payment of duty with intent to evade service tax.
Once there is no perversity in the order under appeal nor the same is vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record, then, we are not obliged to entertain this appeal. There is no substantial question of law arising for consideration. Consequently, the appeal fails and it is dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1714 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - rebuttal of statutory presumption under section 118(a) and 139 of NI Act - preponderance of probabilities - HELD THAT:- In RANGAPPA VERSUS SRI MOHAN [2010 (5) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon'ble Apex Court, while holding that since the signature on the cheque is not disputed, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act is activated, which the accused could not rebut since the defence of lost cheque was not probable, observed that Since the accused did admit that the signature on the cheque was his, the statutory presumption comes into play and the same has not been rebutted even with regard to the materials submitted by the complainant.
Whether the accused has brought on record material which would persuade this Court to believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the prudent man - If the conscious of this Court is satisfied that the accused has discharged the initial onus of proof by demonstrating that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful, it is axiomatic that the onus would shift to the complainant to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability, as a matter of fact. In such a scenario, the accused would have rebutted the statutory presumption under section 118(a) and 139 of the Act and the burden of proving the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability would shift on the complainant.
It is the case of the complainant that the loan was extended for a short duration of a month. The admission that the complainant did not maintain accounts of the transaction and the inference drawn by the learned Magistrate that the transaction was not reflected in the income tax returns, in the factual matrix, is not sufficient to render the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability doubtful - since the statutory rebuttal which concededly is activated, is not rebutted by the accused by evidence showing that the existence of defence is probable, the evidence must be appreciated on the anvil of the statutory presumption in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued towards discharge of an existing debt or liability which is legally enforceable.
The judgment and order impugned suffers from an error of law in appreciating the import and implication of the statutory presumption under section 139 of the Act - accused is convicted for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant under section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Appeal allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1713 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Playing cards for money in Thalikkulam Beach Resort at Thalikkulam - Search and seizure of playing cards - Section 7 & 8 of Kerala Gaming Act, 1960 - HELD THAT:- Since there are conflicting views expressed by two benches of this Court and considering the important question of law raised on the subject, this Court feels that it is necessary that the correct principle of law has to be resolved by a larger bench, since there are two contradictory decisions rendered by two Single Benches of the same Court on the same question of law involved. So the following question has to be considered for reference. Whether in view of the dictum laid down in the decision reported in Abraham v. State of Kerala [2000 (7) TMI 1013 - KERALA HIGH COURT], the earlier decisions of this Court reported in State of Kerala v. Scariah, Kunhikannan and Others v. Asst. Sub Inspector of Police [1985 (4) TMI 344 - KERALA HIGH COURT], Anthumayi v. State of Kerala [1998 (11) TMI 700 - KERALA HIGH COURT] and SUNIL AND ORS. VERSUS STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [2014 (1) TMI 1930 - KERALA HIGH COURT] are having any binding effect and which of the dictum laid down is the correct law taking into consideration the presumption available under Section 6 of the Kerala Gaming Act.
Place it before the Honourable Chief Justice for making a reference to a larger bench to resolve this question.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1712 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Revenue receipts - income of cane society - Anshdan & Nirman Yojna Fund received for the sanctioned project and spent by the assessee - Tribunal come to the conclusion that grant in aid that was extended is for a specific purpose and expenditure, therefore, could not be termed as a revenue receipt so as to form part of the total income - HELD THAT:- As decided in UP. UPBHOKTA SAHKARI SANGH LIMITED. [2006 (8) TMI 148 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] the amount in question was given by the State Government for specific purpose. It did not partake of the nature of income of the respondent-assessee. Even if it is to be treated as an income, it would not be liable to be taxed as it is stated that there was diversion of the income by way of overriding title on the said amount by way of a condition to distribute it as the salary to the employees of the bhandars.
The assessee in that case was also Cane Cooperative Society. In view of above, the questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1711 - ITAT PUNE
TP Adjustment - additions in respect of MSS fee paid by the assessee to its AEs - AR submitted that the assessee has entered into Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) u/s. 92CC of the Act with CBDT - contentions of the assessee is that in the past as well in the subsequent assessment years payment of MSS fee by the assessee to its AE has been accepted by the TPO/DRP at arm’s length and only for the assessment year under appeal that the TPO has raised doubt over rendering of such services by AE to assessee - HELD THAT:- There is no impediment on department in applying the terms and conditions of APA while considering international transactions in the assessment year not covered by the APA, but subject to the condition that the nature of international transactions should be identical in both the situations.
In view of the fact that the assessee has entered into APA with the Board, for the subsequent assessment years, without commenting on the merits of the adjustment made, we deem it appropriate to remit this file back to Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to re-adjudicate the issue, in accordance with the aforesaid directions. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1710 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking quashment of charges - It is the case of the prosecution that the accused were running Gayathri Chits (A-1) and Selvam Finance (A-2) and they had collected deposits from about 37 persons to the tune of Rs.1,06,91,632/- and had defaulted in making the payment - Section 305 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- The definition of the word "person" in Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code can be incorporated into the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this case, there can be no cavil that Gayathri Chits (A-1) and Selvam Finance (A-2) fall within the definition of "person" as defined in Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, they can be prosecuted for the offences under the Indian Penal Code as well for the offences under the TNPID Act. This issue is no more res integra, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in IRIDIUM INDIA TELECOM LTD. VERSUS MOTOROLA INCORPORATED [2010 (10) TMI 85 - SUPREME COURT].
Who should represent Gayathri Chits (A-1) and Selvam Finance (A-2) before the Trial Court? - HELD THAT:- It is not the duty of the prosecution nor the Court to nominate the person to represent Gayathri Chits (A-1) and Selvam Finance (A-2). Section 305 Cr.P.C., clearly states that the accused Corporation may appoint a representative for the purpose of the inquiry or trial. Dictates of common sense demands that some human being must represent A-1 and A-2 to answer the charges, engage an advocate to defend them and answer the questions under Section 313 Cr.P.C., etc - liberty is given to Gayathri Chits (A-1) and Selvam Finance (A-2) to appoint anyone to represent them before the Trial Court and that can be one of the accused or an outsider also, but, with due authorization under the seal of Gayathri Chits (A-1) and Selvam Finance (A-2). However, this cannot be a ground for discharging the present petitioner/A-9 from the prosecution.
This Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merits and hence, it is dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1709 - ITAT KOLKATA
Deduction u/s 80IB - exclusion only the net interest income after adjusting the interest expenditure from the profit eligible for deduction - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the case of Spring Merchandisers Pvt. Limited [2012 (8) TMI 1215 - ITAT AGRA] decided by the Agra Bench of this Tribunal and cited by the ld. D.R. is distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as, the interest income earned on FDRs in the said case was held to be chargeable to tax under the head “income from other sources” while interest expenditure constituted the business expenditure of the assessee.
In these facts and circumstances of the case, it was held by the Tribunal that netting of the income under one head of income against expenditure under the different head of income is not possible as per law. In the present case, interest income was offered by the assessee to tax as business income and even the interest expenditure was also claimed under the same head as business expenditure. As regards the case of Asian Cement Industries [2013 (1) TMI 178 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT] cited by the ld. D.R., it is observed that even though the issue relating to the netting off interest was raised as question no. 3, the same apparently was not decided by the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court specifically by giving any finding or conclusion.
On the other hand in the case of CIT –vs.- Warren Tea Limited [2015 (8) TMI 465 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] relied upon by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in his impugned order has upheld the principle of netting off of interest income against interest expenditure and although the said decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court was rendered in the context of computing business income of the term manufacturing unit as per Rule 8, we are of the view that the same analogy can justifiably be applied even in the present case to hold that only net interest income after adjusting the interest expenditure is liable to be excluded while computing the profit eligible for deduction under section 80IB.
Business of the assessee as eligible for deduction under section 80IB.
Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D only on the investment in shares of Punjab National Bank
-
2018 (1) TMI 1708 - ITAT DELHI
Non appearance by Assessee - neither the assessee nor its Authorised Representative attended the hearing; not filed any Application for adjournment by the Assessee - whether assessee is not interested in prosecution of its Appeals? - HELD THAT:- No useful purpose would be served to serve the notice again and again to the assessee. In view of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its Appeals.
Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd. [1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D] and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar [1996 (3) TMI 92 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] we treat these appeals as unadmitted and dismiss the same. We would like to clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpose of adjudication of the Appeals.
Appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1707 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Liability of tds - payments were made to Government - whether the external development charges are payable by the petitioner under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 to the Government of Haryana or to any other party? - If it is to the Government of Haryana, it is possible that the exemption under Section 196 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 would apply - HELD THAT:- The petitioner states that it entered into the agreements in Forms LC-IV and LC-IV A. Prima facie, the agreements are with the Governor of Haryana.
In these circumstances, the petitioner shall pursuant to the impugned notice dated 22.01.2018 appear before the officer. Till further orders, the order, if any, however, shall not be given effect to.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1706 - ITAT MUMBAI
Depreciation and society charges claimed on Housing accommodation - Disallowance made as these expenses are not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the Appellant's business - HELD THAT:- We find that the “E” Bench of the Tribunal in [2016 (2) TMI 1356 - ITAT MUMBAI] for the assessment year 2009-10 as held claim of the assessee was denied by the authorities below in the absence of the particulars of the person having not been provided by the assessee. In all fairness we are of the view that the matter needs to be looked into by the AO, in order to verify claims of the assessee. Following the principles of natural justice we may it fit deem to the restore this issue back to the file of the AO to verify the names of the employees to whom the premises have been allotted and in whose hands the perk has been offered. Reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the assessee. The ground of appeal no. 4 raised by the assessee is thus allowed for statistical purposes
Adhoc disallowance being 5% of various expenses debited to the Profit & Loss A/c as not incurred wholly and exclusively for business purpose - HELD THAT:- While deciding the issue of ad–hoc disallowance of 5% out of various expenses, the Tribunal did not interfere in the matter and upheld the disallowance. Following the order of the Tribunal For assessment year 2008–09 we uphold the disallowance by dismissing the ground raised by the assessee.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1705 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income chargeable to tax in India - Income attributable on account of PE - Transaction between the assessee and its AE found at arms length price on the issue of agent for space selling - HELD THAT:- Once no income chargeable to tax in India is attributable to the assessee for the reason that the transaction between the assessee and its AE has been found at arms length price, no further income chargeable to tax in India can be said to be attributable on account of PE. Accordingly, this issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of E-Funds IT Solution Inc. [ [2017 (10) TMI 1011 - SUPREME COURT] and alsocase of Taj TV Ltd. [2016 (12) TMI 1291 - ITAT MUMBAI] and ZEE TV USA INC[2017 (11) TMI 1642 - ITAT MUMBAI]. Respectfully following the same, we allow the cross objections of the assessee.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1704 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Disallowance of loss on foreign exchange forward contract loss - Whether the said loss was a notional loss and hence cannot be allowed? - HELD THAT:- It is an agreed position between the parties that the issue raised herein stands concluded against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by the decisions of this Court in CIT v/s. M/s. D. Chetan & Co. [2016 (10) TMI 629 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CIT v/s. M/s. Chaitya[2017 (7) TMI 1439 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
No substantial question of law.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1703 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of Service Tax u/s. 43B - service tax was paid after the due date of filling of return of income and added to the total income of the Appellant - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in favour of assessee as relying on case of Knight Frank (India) (P) Ltd.[2016 (8) TMI 1096 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as held that it is an admitted position before us that the respondent assessee had not claimed any deduction on account of the service tax payable in order to determine its taxable income. In the above view, there can be no occasion to invoke Section 43B of the Act. Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1702 - ITAT DELHI
Accrual of income - Disallowance on account of derecognized interest - HELD THAT:- As regards accrual of interest on sticky loans, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT [1986 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] held that interest accruing on sticky loans is taxable to Income tax on accrual basis.
Accordingly, the NBFC, as in the present case, has to follow the directions of the CBDT and as per the decision of various courts, NBFC including banks follow the cash basis of accounting for interest on sticky loans until they are recovered or the loan itself is written off. There is consistency in following the accounting principles by the assessee and therefore, derecognition of interest on NPAs is not something barred by the Income tax law.
Thus we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the sole ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1701 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Exemption u/s 10(23)(c)(iiiab) - AO held that since no amount has been received from the Government the institute cannot be held to be eligible for exemption under section 10(23)(c)(iiiab) - HELD THAT:- As it is not in dispute that the assessee fulfils the twin conditions of:
a) university or other educational institution existing solely for the educational purposes and not for purposes of profit, and
b) which is wholly or substantially financed by the government. as stipulated under section 10(23)(c)(iiiab).
Since the assessee is wholly funded and owned by the Govt., the finance are being audit by the CAG, Punjab and the receipts are paid into consolidated fund of the Govt. the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 10(23)(c)(iiiab). Hence we decline to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 1700 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Legal obligation to supply copies of documents to the accused - whether accused is entitled to copies of documents at the pre-charge evidence stage in a warrant case instituted on a private complaint? - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Criminal Procedure Code makes a clear distinction between cases instituted on a police report and those instituted otherwise than on police report in the matter of supply of copies of documents relied upon by prosecution. In respect of a case instituted on a police report special provisions were made in Section 173(4) and Section 251A(1) for furnishing copies of documents to the accused by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 1955 but no such corresponding provision was made in cases instituted on a private complaint by virtue of which it can be said that the complainant is bound either by an express provision of law or by necessary implication to furnish to the accused copies of documents produced by him along with the complaint or relied upon in support thereof - It cannot be said that non supply of copies of documents to the accused at the pre- charge stage will be prejudicial to his interest since it is open to the accused to look into the documents and cross-examine the witnesses before charge if necessary.
The ratio of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Melwani's case [1968 (10) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT] appears to be that the legislature has consciously provided two distinct procedures for trial of two different categories of cases depending upon their origination on the police report or otherwise. The procedure which is prescribed for cases originating on a police report and more particularly the provision of Section 173(4) of the Code cannot be introduced or extended to the trial of the other category of cases which are instituted on a private complaint - It is legally impermissible to extend the provisions of Section 173(4) Cr.P.C. to a case instituted on a private complaint. Mr. Mukherjee could not refer to any provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or any authority by virtue of which the accused would be entitled to copies of documents at the pre-charge evidence stage in a case instituted on a private complaint.
Evidently the provisions of Section 294 are not apposite for the issue in hand - the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside - Petition allowed.
........
|
