|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1640 Records
-
2024 (7) TMI 1620
Treatment to the surrendered income on account of sundry debtors and excess cash found - income undisclosed or unexplained investment or money u/s 69 & 69A OR business income - whether the income offered by the assessee falls within the meaning of section 69 & 69A or not, and as to whether the same is to be charged to tax at normal rate or the rate as prescribed u/s. 115BBE? - HELD THAT:- It is not a case of investment of the abovesaid amount by the assessee, and rather, as per list prepared by the assessee, a case of receipt of the amounts from the sundry debtors, which was offered for tax as regular income of the assessee firm. Said claim of the assessee was not disputed or challenged, and furthermore, there is no further evidence adverse to said claim raised by the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a case where provisions of section 69 come into application. See M/S MONTU SHALLU KNITWEARS [2023 (12) TMI 972 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] wherein held nature and source of such unaccounted stock is nothing but arising out of assessee’s business operations. No doubt, these transactions were not recorded at the time of survey thus qualify as unrecorded transactions satisfying one of the essential conditions, at the same time, the assessee has provided the necessary explanation about the nature and source of such unrecorded transactions and the necessary nexus with assessee’s business has been established, thus, it cannot be said that these are unexplained transactions thus, doesn’t satisfy the second condition for invoking the deeming provisions of section 69B.
The amounts surrendered by the assessee at the time of survey could not be subjected to tax under the deeming provisions of section 69 & 69A of the Act. When the source and nature of income had already been considered and accepted, the subject amounts were required to be subjected to tax at normal rate. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
-
2024 (7) TMI 1619
Maintainability of SLP - low tax effect - dispute between the parties has been referred for determination to the Lok Adalat - HELD THAT:- The tax effect of the subject matter of the special leave petition is falling below the threshold contained in the circular dated 22 August 2019 of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
The special leave petition is disposed of as not pressed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1618
Penalty imposed u/s 270A - intentional misrepresentation of expenditure in the profit and loss account by the assessee - CIT(A) deleted penalty levy - as argued by the DR is that there was intentional misrepresentation of expenditure in profit and loss account resulting in under-reporting of income and attempted tax evasion.
HELD THAT:- Since the assessee has pleaded that fresh loan has been obtained for capital expenditure on assets which has been claimed as capital expenditure in the ITR and now assessee submits request to reduce its claim of capital expenditure for the assets on which loan has been taken in next years. According to the Ld. AO, the plea of the assessee is found acceptable.
Not only this the Ld. AO went on to observe further that in this way, the assessee had saved itself from the double deduction on same capital assets on which loan is availed in coming years whose repayment may have been claimed by the assessee in subsequent AYs. It was in the above backdrop of the factual matrix that the Ld. AO disallowed the excess claim of capital expenditure.
There is no intentional misrepresentation of expenditure as alleged. By no stretch of imagination it can be said to be a case of attempted tax evasion as even after revision of computation, the taxable income remained Nil which is same as returned income of the assessee. In the assessment order there is no whisper that there is underreporting on total income as a consequence to misreporting as envisaged u/s 270A(8) and (9) of the Act.
We are inclined to agree with the submissions of the Ld. AR that a revision in computation of income was made with a view to correct bonafide mistake which did not have any tax implication so as to cause misrepresentation resulting in misreporting. Misrepresentation is often willful or intentional done with the intention of gaining wrongfully. Nothing of the sort has been done by the assessee. It only corrected an inadvertent mistake. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1617
Seeking grant of interim bail - applicant has sought the indulgence of this Court to permit him to attend the last rites of his uncle - HELD THAT:- Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, according to which, applicant’s uncle has expired on 07.07.2024 and his last rites will be performed in near future, this Court is of the view that the prayer for interim bail can be allowed.
It is not in dispute that the passport of the applicant is with the Central Bureau of Investigation in case No. RC0962019A0002 dated 07.05.2019, under Sections 409, 419, 465, 466, 467 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Considering this fact, this Court is of the view that the interim bail application is liable to be allowed, as such, his application is allowed, so that the applicant could attend the last rites of his uncle - Bail application allowed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1616
Deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) - Return of Income is not filed in time - HELD THAT:- As concurring with the view taken by the Tribunal in the case Vishva Villa Co-op Housing Society [2024 (6) TMI 1395 - ITAT MUMBAI] we hold that for the Assessment Year 2018-19, the deduction claimed by the Assessee under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act could not have been disallowed on the ground that the return was filed after due date specified in Section 139(1) of the Act.
We note that as per Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, for the purpose of claiming deduction under the aforesaid provision interest must be received from a ‘co-operative society’. A co-operative society is defined in Section 2(19) of the Act as being a co-operative society registered either under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 or under any other law for the time being in force in any State for the registration of co-operative societies.
We also find merit in the contention of the Appellant that return was, in fact, filed within time specified u/s 139(1). We observe that for the Assessment Year 2018-19, in case of person (other than a company) whose accounts were required to the audited under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, as per Explanation 2(a)(ii) of Section 139(1) of the Act, the due date for filling of income tax return was 30th September of the relevant assessment year [subsequently substituted with 31st October vide finance Act 2020 with effect from 01/04/2020]. The Appellant being a Co-Operative Society governed by Maharashtra Co-Operative Society Act 1960 was required to be audited under Maharashtra State Co-Operative Act and therefore, was required to file its return of income upto 30/09/2018. As per Revenue the Appellant had filed return on 26/09/2018. Thus, the return was filed before the due date as prescribed under Section 139 of the Act, and therefore, the Appellant is entitled for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act as claimed.
Order passed by the CIT(A) cannot be sustained. AO is directed to allow deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1615
Money Laundering - HELD THAT:- The case is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Tarsem Lal vs. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office [2024 (5) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT]. Hence, the interim order dated 24th June, 2024 is made absolute on the same terms and conditions. The Special Court may direct the appellant to furnish bonds for appearance in accordance with Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 91 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1614
Seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in the context of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - it was held by High Court that the petitioner's request for anticipatory bail was not maintainable.
HELD THAT:- In view of a decision of this Court in the case of Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Official [2024 (5) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT], the interim order dated 6th May, 2024 is made absolute on the same terms and conditions.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1613
Seeking direction to convert the non-bailable arrest warrant dated 14.02.2020 issued against the petitioner into bailable warrant in Criminal Sessions Case - petitioner is willing and ready to appear before the trial court for recording of her statements - HELD THAT:- In the premise, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned Non-Bailable Warrant dated 14.02.2020 issued against the petitioner for appearing before the trial court is converted in bailable warrant. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court within a period of one month of passing of the instant order alongwith the web-print of the same and upon her appearance before the trial court, she shall be released on bail by the learned trial court subject to her furnishing bail bond to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1612
Exemption claimed u/s. 10(38) with respect to long term capital gains - AO received information from the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department that the assessee manipulated accounts to generate entries of bogus long term capital gains - AO has also made an addition of 3% commission payment for getting accommodation entries etc. from various intermediaries As he is a beneficiary to claim exemption of LTCG u/s. 10(38)
HELD THAT:- As it is already held that the transaction as not genuine and only make-believe agreement, the payment of commission is corollary, the addition towards commission is also upheld. Hence, the additions made with respect to LTCG and commission payment are hereby confirmed and the appeal of Revenue is allowed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1611
Application for rectification of returns filed for Financial Year 2017-2018 in Form GSTR-1 - rejection of application on the ground that the time to rectify had ended - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is allowed to rectify GSTR-1 for Financial Year 2017-2018.
Petition disposed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1610
Money Laundering - seeking enlargement on bail - mastermind of the alleged offence named Bharat Bomb has never been arrested in view of the statement made on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement - HELD THAT:- It is required to set aside the impugned order by granting bail to the appellant subject to the conditions that may be imposed by the designated Court.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1609
Money Laundering - withdrawal of monitoring petitions challenging the cognizance order issued by the trial court under PMLA - HELD THAT:- The petitioners are allowed to withdraw the monitoring petitions.
These surveillance petitions are dismissed on the ground of withdrawal of qualified counsel by the petitioners and it is ordered that the petitioners should present themselves before the subordinate court within one month from today. During this period of one month, the proceedings for execution of arrest warrant issued against the petitioners will remain suspended. If the petitioners do not present themselves before the trial court within a period of one month, it will be presumed that the petitioners are avoiding appearance by ignoring the order of the court and the trial court will be free to summon the petitioners / accused again with arrest warrant.
The stay applications filed along with these review petitions are also disposed of.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1608
Addition u/s 68 - treating share capital and share premium received as unexplained income of the assessee u/s 68 - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee has successfully discharged the burden of proof primarily casted upon it to explain the identity and creditworthiness of all the 9 share applicants and genuineness of the share transactions and correctness of such details has not been disputed by the Revenue Authorities except making general observations. No justification on the part of the lower authorities in making the impugned addition and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted. Appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1607
Estimation of the income @ 8% of contract receipts available in Form 26 AS - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the assessee does not maintain any books of accounts and has filed return of income @ 1.5% gross turnover.
AO has taken 8% of the contract receipts estimated @ 8% of gross receipts citing the case of Ganga Prasad Sharma [1980 (3) TMI 49 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] that there is a certain degree of guess work in best judgment assessment and he has taken income @ 8% of contractual receipt taking into contract works.
AR has submitted that the assessee is not in civil contract business and section 44AD is not applicable as turnover of the assessee is more than 4 Crores.
AR has also submitted that in similar line of business, the profit margin is 3.5%. We have gone through the assessment order, CIT (A) order, and comparable cases. Considering the turnover and the nature of business, in our opinion 5% of turnover will be reasonable estimate for estimating the income of assessee. Appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1606
Exemption u/s 11 - scope and amplitude of the definition “charitable purpose” - HELD THAT:- Matter is remitted to the authority concerned to decide the same afresh in view of the ratio decided in AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [2022 (10) TMI 948 - SUPREME COURT]
-
2024 (7) TMI 1605
Penalty u/s 271D and u/s 271E - violations of Sections 269SS and 269T - as argued incriminating evidences as relied do not establish any transaction of loan or payment of interest - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that with regard to the incriminating nature of the evidences which were allegedly unearthed in the search and subsequently requisitioned by the AO, the issue about their veracity is still wide open in the light of the pendency of the appeals in the case of Sant Asharam ji Ashram and even in the case of the assessee, wherein additions on merits have been challenged.
Thus, without going into the merits of the same, if the penalty order is examined, it comes up that the AO has merely relied the observations in the assessment order for concluding that there were transactions of loan taken from Asharam in cash violating section 271D and that the alleged loan were repaid to Asharam in cash leading to alleged violation and penalty u/s 271E.
Now as settled proposition of law, we find that penalty proceedings are included in the expression "assessment" and the true nature of a penalty is the imposition of an additional tax. But, one of the principal objects is to provide a deterrent against recurrence of default on the part of the assessee. Therefore, the relevant sections 269SS read with section 271D and 271E of the Act is a penal provision and the proceedings imposing penalty are quasi- criminal in nature.
The onus is heavy on the Department to not only establish the facts with categorical finding, independently of the assessment order but to also successfully canvass that due process of law was strictly followed.
The penalty orders as passed in the case in hand show that the AO has drawn conclusion on the basis of ‘elaborate discussion’ in the assessment order without making a specific examination of the issues, independently. It is for this reason the discrepancies with regard to the name of the borrower or lender being Shri Asharam ji Ashram or Shri Asharam Bapu or stating violator to be assessee company while the assessee is individual have crept in.
In this background, if we consider the purport of the CBDT Circular dated 26.04.2016 which is heavily relied by the ld. counsel of the assessee that reference for the purpose of penalty u/s 271D and 271E of Act should be made during the course of assessment proceedings itself. We find that directions were not complied.
Since, in the Act, there is no specific provision about the stage at which the reference for penalty is to be made during assessment, therefore, the initiation of the reference is akin to filing of complaint before JCIT and same has to be as per due procedure, laid down under the law. Since there is no specific provision in the Act, this circular shall prevail. Revenue cannot claim it to be merely advisory. As observed earlier, at cost of repetition we hold that this direction of Board has subsumed in the Act, as a step validating the exercise of jurisdiction to initiate penalty proceedings by JCIT concerned.
Here in the case in hand initiation was not during the pendency of the assessment, as directed by the Circular, but way after, thus the assumption of jurisdiction to issue the penalty notice was vitiated and, consequently, the imposition of penalty also stands vitiated. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1604
Appointment of arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties and the present petition be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - HELD THAT:- With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of by appointing Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, former Judge, Supreme Court of India as the learned arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties under a Share Purchase Agreement.
The present petition will be treated as an application under Section 17 of the Act before the learned arbitrator. The respondent may file a reply to the application under Section 17 of the Act, within ten days from today or as soon as the learned arbitrator enters upon the reference, whichever is later.
Petition disposed off.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1603
Challenge to TET examination of the year 2017 conducted by the WBBPE - HELD THAT:- The Board is directed to produce an authenticated copy of such resolution before this Court on the adjourned date.
List the matter on 12th July, 2024 for further consideration.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1602
Addition u/s 68 - Specified Bank Notes/SBN deposited during demonetization period - only reason given by the AO to make addition u/s. 68 was that assessee could not have transacted/received SBNs during demonetization period and relies on the notification dated 08.11.2016 by Government of India - HELD THAT:- In this case, we have gone through the analysis furnished by the assessee in respect of total sales, cash sales realization from debtors and cash deposits during financial year 2015-16 & 2016-17, there is no significant change in cash deposits during demonetization period.
When there is no significant change in cash deposits during demonetization period, then merely for the reason that the assessee has accepted specified bank notes in violation of circulation/notification issued by Government of India and RBI, the source explained for cash deposits cannot be countenanced.
As noted that the assessee has given all the financials for the earlier years and subsequent years and the chart supra shows that deposits of SBNs cannot be said to be comparatively suspicious.
We also note from the financials filed by the assessee that assessee had enough stock of the fireworks to sale same to the customers on credit during the Diwali Festival i.e. 30.10.2016.
Thus, we find that the assessee had sufficient stock as on 30.10.2016 (Diwali period) for sale of the goods which generated amountto be deposited during the demonetization period and there are no defects in the stock registers. Every purchase and sale matches with inflow and outflow of the stock and as assessee has placed on record that the purchased goods have already inflicted with VAT/Sales Tax and the AO has not found any infirmity in the books of accounts of the assessee. Therefore, we direct the deletion of addition - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2024 (7) TMI 1601
Challenge to final assessment order - petitioner argued that the time extensions granted by notifications were arbitrary and lacked substantial reasons - HELD THAT:- Issue notice to the respondents, returnable after four weeks.
........
|
9911796707
