|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1404 Records
-
2016 (10) TMI 1384
Refund claim - confirmation of the adjudication order without appreciating the difficulties of the appellant - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- It transpires from the adjudication order that appellant has been aggrieved due to rejection of its refund for non-submission of evidence in support of the claim of refund. Therefore without keeping the appeal pending, to do justice to both sides, the matter is remanded to the ld. Adjudicating authority to hear the appellant afresh on the evidence that may led by appellant during re-adjudication proceeding.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1383
Benefit of the Amnesty Scheme - It was held by Gujarat High Court that It is an admitted position that in the facts of the present case, the petitioners seek the benefit of the Scheme in relation to the years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 which are well within the ambit of the Scheme namely, between 1st April, 2006 and 14th October, 2014.
HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court - SLP dismissed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1382
Rejection of discharge application filed by revisionist - Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- Despite repeated query, learned counsel for the revisionist, could not point out any manifest error or otherwise illegality so as to warrant interference.
Revision dismissed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1381
Exemption u/s 11 - Registration u/s 12AA - Doctrine of Mutuality - Addition to the income of the assessee, the interest received from Bank, interest received on IT refund and interest received from Cable Operator simply because the interest income was received from 3rd parties - HELD THAT:- We find that assessee has been granted exemption u/s. 11 by virtue of registration u/s. 12AA granted by the CIT, Ghaziabad w.e.f. 24.4.2007 and principle of Doctrine of Mutuality has been accepted by the ITAT in assessee’s own case relying on ALL INDIA ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE WELFARE SOCIETY [2003 (1) TMI 704 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as directed to grant the assessee the exemption in respect of the interest on the bank by applying the principle and doctrine of mutuality.Therefore find considerable cogency in the contention of the Assessee’s AR that the issue involved in ground nos. 1 and 2 are squarely covered by the ITAT decision as aforesaid.
Allowance of expenses which were in. the nature of recurring, office and administrative expenses incurred in the course of earning income - Both the revenue authorities have not discussed this issue in their respective orders, therefore, the ground is remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, as per law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1380
Interference of police interpreting the condition imposed as restricting members of the club even from playing games of skill such as Gin rummy, with stakes - It is contended that a game of skill could be permitted to be played, with stakes - HELD THAT:- Section 176 of the Karnataka Police Act was not brought to attention and it was completely overlooked. From a reading of Section 176, it does appear that persons taking part in such games of skill could also wager.
Whether rummy, a game of cards, could be considered as a game of skill had come up for consideration before the Supreme Court. In the said judgment, in the case of STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VERSUS K. SATYANARAYANA & ORS. [1967 (11) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT], the court has held that rummy is not entirely a game of chance but is 'preponderantly' a game of skill.
In a further judgment in DR. KR. LAKSHMANAN VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU [1996 (1) TMI 336 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court has, while also noting the earlier judgment in K. Satyanarayana, supra, equated a game of rummy to that of chess or golf, which are pure games of skill. Therefore, it could be said that rummy is indeed a game of skill, though some element of chance is involved. Preponderantly, as held by the Supreme Court in K. Satyanarayana, rummy is a game of skill. Therefore, if the words "without stakes" are deleted from the judgment of this court, the petitioner's purpose would be served and there would be no chance of misinterpretation.
The benefit of Section 176 could then not be denied to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1379
Product Registration Expenses - Nature of expenses - revenue or capital expenditure - whether CIT(A) erred in not treating product registration charges as capital expenditure? - HELD THAT:-Assessee filed the copies of registration certificate issued by the Health and Drug administration of various countries such as Zambia, Ghana, Georgia, Vietnam, Nigeria, Ukrain, etc. with the registration number and the details of products and expiry period of the license.
The fees were paid towards vendor registration, quality control checks, testing and verification of such products for human consumption, impact over environment over disposal, etc. After passing the said tests, the concerned Government allows sale of such products in the Country.
On the said facts and circumstances the CIT(A) has relied upon the case decided in the case of Panacea Biotech Ltd. [2012 (2) TMI 15 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and case of Cadilla Healthcare Ltd. [2013 (3) TMI 539 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] No distinguishable facts and law has been placed on record by the revenue at the time of arguments.
Additional evidence which relevant to the facts of the case, can be taken into consideration during appellate proceeding in accidence with law. The CIT(A) has passed the orders judiciously and correctly which does not require to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Decided against revenue.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1378
Validity of the assessment order passed u/s 153C - necessity of recording satisfaction - Whether satisfaction was recorded by the A.O. in the case of searched person that the incriminating material found during the course of search belongs to the assessee? - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee husband case SHRI GALI JANARDHANA REDDY [2016 (11) TMI 530 - ITAT BANGALORE] no satisfaction was recorded by the AO in his capacity as AO of the searched person because it is seen that the so-called satisfaction note prepared by the AO is in his capacity as AO of assessee, although he happens to be the AO of the searched persons also, it could not be shown by the revenue that any satisfaction note was prepared by him as AO of searched persons and therefore, under these facts, this is to be accepted that no satisfaction was recorded by the AO of searched person.
As case of M/s. Gopi Apartment [2014 (5) TMI 158 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and case of Calcutta Knitwears [2014 (4) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT] and Manish Maheshwari [2007 (2) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT] are applicable and therefore, respectfully following these judgments, we hold that in the present case, notice issued by the AO u/s. 153C of the I.T. Act deserves to be quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1377
Seeking a direction to the respondents to return the cheques taken from the petitioner during the inspection conducted by the second respondent in the place of business of the petitioner on 19.9.2016 at 6 PM - HELD THAT:- Time and again, this Court held that the officials of the Enforcement Wing cannot collect cheques or even collect tax in the nature of advance tax and this practice has been deprecated and the leading decision on this point is in the case of HOTEL BLUE NILE VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU [1992 (9) TMI 309 - MADRAS HIGH COURT].
The action of the second respondent in retaining the cheques issued by the petitioner is not sustainable - Petition allowed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1376
Seeking to quash the Technical Bid Evaluation Summary under Annexure-4 and the consequential Financial Bid Opening Summary under Annexure-5 - direction for fresh evaluation of the Bid taking into account the materials - reason for rejection of the tender of the petitioner was communicated to the petitioner before the financial bids were opened, or not - time to produce the renewed licence should have been granted to the petitioner before rejecting his tender, or not.
While rejecting the bid of the petitioner, it has to be seen whether any reason has been assigned by the authority or not? - HELD THAT:- Reason means the faculty of rational thought rather than some abstract relationship between propositions and by this faculty, it is meant the capacity to make correct inferences from propositions, to size up facts for what they are and what they imply, and to identify the best means to some end, and, in general, to distinguish what we should believe from what we merely do believe. The importance of giving reason, it reveals a rational nexus between facts considered and conclusions reached.
In UNION OF INDIA VERSUS. MOHAN LAL CAPOOR & OTHERS [1973 (9) TMI 99 - SUPREME COURT] and in UMA CHARAN VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. [1981 (8) TMI 235 - SUPREME COURT], the apex Court held reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion and decision reached. The fair play requires recording of germane and relevant precise reasons when an order affects the right of a citizen or a person irrespective of the fact whether it is judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative. The recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned applied its mind to the facts on record and it is vital for the purpose of showing a person that he is receiving justice.
Considering the meaning of "reasons" and its essentiality in passing the orders and applying the same to the present context, it reveals from the additional affidavit filed by the State-opposite parties 1 and 2 that the documents giving reasons have been attached as Annexure-A to the said affidavit. With the writ petition, the petitioner has filed only the first page of the summary uploaded on the website, in which it was merely stated that the tender of the petitioner has been rejected on technical grounds - On perusal of the summary along with the minutes, it is clear that the same was signed by the authorized personnel at 6.14 P.M. on 15.05.2015 and both the documents were uploaded on the same date at 6.15 P.M., which is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no reason for rejecting the tender documents of the petitioner was given, does not have merit as clear reason that the petitioner had not furnished valid registration certificate as an 'A' Class Contractor, has been assigned in the minutes uploaded on the website.
Time ought to have been given to the petitioner to furnish the renewed certificate of registration - HELD THAT:- Unless such time was required to be given in the terms and conditions of the Tender Documents, the opp. parties could not have given such opportunity to the petitioner. All the documents were required to be filed along with the tender papers, and in case had any extra time been given to the petitioner for furnishing the renewed licence, the same would have amounted to deviation of the terms of the tender conditions. As such, the opp. parties cannot be said to have faulted in not giving time to the petitioner to furnish such certificate.
The reasons for rejection of the tender of the petitioner had duly been communicated and there was no necessity for giving any time to the petitioner to produce the document which was lacking, i.e., the registration certificate in the present case - there are no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority so as to call for interference with the order impugned in Annexures-4 and 5 - petition dismissed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1375
Perjury - petitioner had suppressed her true income - whether it is expedient in the interest of justice that such prosecution would be necessary? - HELD THAT:- This Court notices that the Court has elaborately discussed the law and applied the said law to the facts to hold that the petitioner has not stated the correct facts on oath. She has stated that she was doing household work and has no source of income while her income is Rs.40,000/per month from the business. She has of course, revealed that she has received sum of Rs. 4 lakhs from the earlier marriage. With regard to the income tax returns, she is found to have given false evidence. With regard to the fixed deposit and the amount that has been credited in her FDR, she stated that she has no knowledge with regard to her accounts in Central Bank of India and Rajkot Cooperative Bank. The husband also examined the witness, who was Inspector in the IncomeTax Department, wherein she submitted her personal income and her incometax returns have been brought on the record to indicate that from the year 201112 she has income from business at Rs.1,48,251/. The business profit was worth Rs.1,84,251/- - The Court on noticing that she was getting sufficient income from the fixed deposit receipt and yet has not admitted in the evidence produced by her stating that she has no source of income, had directed the initiation of the prosecution under section 195 read with section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
As can be noticed from the chronology of events and the evidence that has been adduced before the Court concerned, it is certain that the injury which could have been sustained by the other side has not resulted on account of this alleged falsehood because respondent No.2 could find out at an appropriate time the details which he has furnished before the Court. So far as its impact on the administration of justice is concerned, this Court has no reason to interfere as often it is found that the litigants coming before the Court chose to speak blatant lies and do so with complete impudence - Laws which are otherwise in favour of the distressed wife when are sought to be misused by declaring completely incorrect facts and also by suppressing the material aspect, the trial Court at the time of considering the case found that the impact on the administration of justice would make it expedient for it to direct the prosecution.
Petition disposed off.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1374
TP Adjustment - interest on loans from its AEs - HELD THAT:- Sasken India earns mostly in foreign currency with 80% of its sales and some of the domestic sales being in foreign currency. As per the newly introduced Safe Harbour rules by the CBDT, the prescribed ALP rate is the base rate of SBI if the loan to Indian subsidiaries outside India is in Indian currency. All these facts are acknowledged by the TPO in his order.
As pleaded that the impugned loan to its AEs were out of its own funds , not out of borrowed funds, the loans are given in US dollars, interest was received in Indian rupees and when such transactions between it and its AEs are in international transactions the ratio of the above cases ie the transaction would have to be looked upon by applying commercial principles in regard to international transaction and in such cases the domestic prime lending rate would not have applicability and the international rate fixed being LIBOR would come into play.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the issue requires to be examined by the TPO afresh in the light of the above materials and the ratios and accordingly remit the issue to the TPO.
Disallowance u/s 14A - AR pleaded that the disallowance made u/s 14A read with rule 8D(2)(iii) has been made without demonstrating the incorrectness of the claim of the assessee that it has not incurred any expenditure towards earning exempt income. The said disallowance is therefore bad in law - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered opinion that the issue requires to be examined by the AO afresh in the light of the above amendments and accordingly remit the issue to the AO.
Addition under the caption ‘Excess deduction' u/s.10A /10AA - HELD THAT:- On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that neither the AO has examined these issues properly nor they received due attention at the hands of the DRP. We are of the considered view that the above issues are required to be adjudicated by the AO afresh in the light of the above ratio and if the facts are similar to apply the above ratios accordingly and hence these issues are also remitted to the AO.
Short credit of TDS - assessee submitted that since the AO has not allowed TDS credit -TDS credit should be fully allowed as claimed in the return of income - HELD THAT:- We find that the DRP has directed the AO to verify the credit from the record, vis-à-vis, the claim made by the assessee and give credit to it accordingly. We direct the AO to give credit to the amount claimed by the assessee.
Deduction u/s.10A - HELD THAT:- DRP had followed the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd [2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] in directing exclusion of items deducted from export turnover from total turnover also for working out the deduction u/s.10A - Just for the reason that appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the judgment of jurisdictional High Court would not be a reason not to follow the jurisdictional High Court’s judgment. We do not find any lacunae in the order of the DRP - In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1373
Addition u/s 40A(3) - return of income was filed by the assessee on presumptive basis u/s 44AF - HELD THAT:- We find merit in the submission of assessee that similar issue was decided by this Bench in favour of assessee as respectfully following the decision of ITAT Ahemdabad Bench in the case of Gopalsingh R Rajpurohit [2004 (7) TMI 271 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] hold that once the assessee has filed his return u/s 44AF, no further disallowance can be made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. It is noteworthy that in this case no trading irregularity was found and addition has been sustained only on technical issue of Section 40A(3) of the Act. The presumptive system of tax u/s 44AF starts with non-obstante clause and overrides other provisions. There is no justification in making the addition which is deleted. Since the addition is deleted on merits, there is no need to go into alternative ground. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1372
Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - ‘royalty’ received from the Indian entity - existence of PE in India - Income taxable in India either under the Income Tax Act or under India-USA DTAA - AO did not accept the claim of the assessee and assessed the royalty @ 15% under India-USA DTAA - HELD THAT:- The very issue of existence of PE in India has been considered by the Hon’ble ITAT. The income of the assessee company does not qualify for the definition of Royalty in term of income tax Act 1961. The AO himself has accepted in the assessment order that the income of the assessee cannot be taxed as Royalty. Once the income of the assessee company does not qualify under the definition of Royalty, the income has to be held as business income. The business income cannot be taxed in the absence of PE in India. We have seen that the Hon’ble ITAT has categorically held that the WBPIPL is not the PE of the assessee company.
Thus, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case [2011 (12) TMI 195 - ITAT MUMBAI] we are of the view that the income of the assessee is not taxable in India and we direct the AO to delete the addition proposed on this account - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1371
Sanction of scheme of Amalgamation - Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- From the material on record, the Scheme appears to be fair and reasonable and is not violative of any provisions of law and is not contrary to public policy. No other party has come forward to oppose the Scheme in the Court.
Since all the requisite statutory compliances have been fulfilled, the Company Scheme Petition No. 317 of 2016 filed by the Transferor Company is made absolute in terms of the prayer made under sub- clauses (a) to (d) of Clause 35 and the Company Scheme Petition No. 318 of 2016 filed by the Transferee Company is made absolute in terms of the prayer made under sub-clauses (a) to (d) of Clause 34.
The Petitioners are directed to file a copy of the Scheme of Amalgamation with the concerned Registrar of Companies, electronically, along with E-Form INC 28 in addition to physical copy as per the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956/ 2013, which ever is applicable - application disposed off.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1370
Exemption u/s 10(23C) (iiiab) - CIT(A) rejecting the claim of the assessee - HELD THAT:- The assessee filed a letter written by the Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Deptt. of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Chandigarh, to The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Chandigarh Memo No. 01/02/2014-4TE2/821193/1 dated 17.8.2016, wherein it is claimed among other things that the revenue generated by the Institute belongs to the Consolidated Fund of the Government and the same has been permitted to be retained by the Institution for achieving the objectives of the society as yearly grant. This letter was not before the lower authorities, when the issue of grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) has been adjudicated.
CIT(A) has to consider this letter, as the contents therein go to the root of the matter and take a fresh view on the matter. The claim made in this letter require verification. Thus, we set aside all these appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1369
Disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IA(4) - deduction from the profits of developing the infrastructure facility - AO noticed that assessee has claimed deduction under the provision of section 80-IA(4) against its work contract income which the Assessing Officer said is not in accordance with law - HELD THAT:- Assessee entered into a contract with the government and the nature of work carried out shows that the assessee carried the work directly and it has employed various resources as stated above. Assessee has made huge investments in all kinds of resources for its business, namely plant and machineries, structures at sites, working capital, human resources, technical expertise etc.
Assessee possesses its own technical knowledge of how to develop and lay roads, dams, bridges etc.. The assessee has purchased and employed its own materials for development and construction of the infrastructure facility. The entire planning of its business as also the work has been done by the assessee and not by the Government.
Assessee can be said to be a developer and cannot be denied deduction from the profits of developing the infrastructure facility though it may not operate or maintain the same, particularly in view of the in insertion of the word or in sec.80-IA(4) of the act. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above and legal legal findings as referred in the above judicial pronouncements, we considered that the assessee is entitled to a deduction under section 80IA(4) of the act, therefore, we uphold of the order of the learned CIT (A) - Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1368
Validity of orders passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) - validity of Assessment u/s 153(2A) order passed by the A.O. as barred by limitation - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) has held that the provisions of section 153 (2A) does not apply to orders passed u/s 201 (1) and 201 (1A). It is noted by him in Para 3.2 of his order that as per the A.O. Section 153 (2A) of the Act applies to only orders enumerated therein and does not cover orders passed u/s 201 (1) and 201 (1A).
CIT (A) has reproduced the provisions of section 153 (2A) and since section 201 is not refereed therein, he confirmed the assessment order on this aspect. Now we examine the applicability of the judgment rendered in the case of CIT vs. Jodhan Real Estate Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. [2004 (7) TMI 43 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] - We find that in that case, fresh order passed u/s 104 was also in dispute as time barred and the tribunal held in that case that it is time barred and this tribunal order was upheld by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court.
We are of the considered opinion that if section 153 (2A) is applicable to order passed u/s 104 then there is no reason or basis to hold that it is not applicable to order passed u/s 201 and 201 (1A). Accordingly, we hold that all these orders passed by the A.O. u/s 201 and 201 (1A) are time barred. Hence these are quashed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1367
Deduction u/s.80IA - operating of Container Freight Station (CFS) - scope of term infrastructure facilities - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2012 (5) TMI 260 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that an ICD is not a port but It Is an inland port. The case of CFS is similarly situated In the sense that both carry out similar functions. i.e.. warehousing, customs clearance and transport of goods from. Its location to the seaports and vice versa by railway or by trucks in containers. Thus, the issue is no longer res integra. Respectfully following this decision, it Is held that a CFS is an Inland port whose Income is entitled to deduction u/s 80-IA(4).
Since the Ld.CIT(A) while deciding the issue in favour of the assessee has followed the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case as well as various other decisions, therefore, in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice against the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) allowing the claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4). Merely because the Revenue has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, the same in our opinion cannot be a ground to take a contrary view than the view taken by the Tribunal especially in absence of any order reversing the decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1366
Refusal to condone a period of 65 days in re-filing the objections Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - HELD THAT:- Section 34(3) has no Application in re-filing the Petition but only applies to the initial filing of the objections Under Section 34 of the Act. It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that Rule 5(3) of the Delhi High Court Rules states that if the Memorandum of Appeal is filed and particular time is granted by the Deputy Registrar, it shall be considered as fresh institution. If this Rule is strictly applied in this case, it would mean that any re-filing beyond 7 days would be a fresh institution. However, it is a matter of record that 5 extensions were given beyond 7 days. Undoubtedly, at the end of the extensions, it would amount to re-filing.
Also, Petitioner has offered an explanation for the delay for the period after the extensions.
It is deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned Order - appeal allowed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1365
Revision u/s 263 - treatment to income - compensation received under compromise - As per CIT AO wrongly assumed the facts as transfer of capital asset which is incorrect inasmuch as the assessee never had any trade mark right in Southeast Asia and transfer of capital asset does not arise - According to the CIT, the agreement that was entered into between the assessee and M/s. Group Danone is in the nature of non-compete agreement, not to launch the biscuit products under the trade mark ‘TIGER’ in Singapore and Malaysia and the amount that was received by the assessee was towards loss of profits on account of the assessee company’s inability to launch its products in Singapore and Malaysia and only because the assessee withdrew its right to expand business in Singapore and Malaysia, and consequently incurred loss of future profit, which they could have otherwise arranged, the compensation was paid - HELD THAT:- It could be seen from the submissions of the assessee before the AO, the assessee placed reliance on so many decisions in respect of their contentions to object the treatment of the amount either as business income or as capital gain. Having considered all these facts and also the law laid down in such decisions, the AO consciously reached a conclusion that the income is to be treated as capital gain but not as either capital receipt or business income. This is one of the probable views that could have validly be taken. By no stretch of imagination could it be said that the AO mechanically passed this order taking the view that the income has to be charged as capital gain. The AO made enquiries, called for details of such income and having considered the submissions of the assessee in respect of all the three probable views i.e. capital receipt, business income and capital gain, the AO for the reasons recorded in his order at page nos. 7 to 10, came to the conclusion that the income in dispute has to be charged as capital gain but not as capital receipt or business income. In this factual context, we are called upon to examine the question whether the CIT is justified in terming the order of AO as erroneous and without proper enquiry or on wrong assumption of the facts.
In JMC Projects (India) Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 1510 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that the power u/s. 263 of the Act cannot be exercised when though addition has been made on the footing or the premise which are not to the satisfaction of the Commissioner to make additions on better premise with better reasoning or on different application of legal principles.
We are of the firm conclusion that the Assessment Order is not the result of non application of mind or wrong assumption of facts or without any proper enquiry. And it, therefore, follows that assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act by the Ld. CIT is unwarranted and the order cannot be sustained. We, therefore, quash the same. Appeal of assessee is allowed.
........
|
9911796707
Advanced Search 
