Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1442 Records
-
2022 (2) TMI 1243 - ITAT BANGALORE
Disallowance of claim made u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - HELD THAT:- We agree with the submissions made by Ld. A.R, since the assessment order has been passed prior to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd (supra), [2021 (1) TMI 488 - SUPREME COURT] wherein many legal principles have been settled by Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, the issue of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) requires to be examined afresh by following the above said decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, set aside the order passed by ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the A.O. with the direction to examine the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act accordingly.
Disallowance of claim made u/s 80P(2)(d) - A.R. submitted that the coordinate bench in the case of M/s. Vasavamba Co-operative Society Ltd [2021 (8) TMI 706 - ITAT BANGALORE] has considered the contentions of the assessee that interest earned from deposits made with Co-operative banks in compliance with the Karnataka Cooperative Societies rules constituted its income under the head “income from business” and accordingly claimed that the same is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - HELD THAT:- As the assessee is raising this issue for the first time before the Tribunal. In the case of M/s Vasavamba Co-operative Society Ltd (supra), the division bench of Tribunal has restored this issue to the file of the AO. Accordingly, following the above said decision of the division bench, we restore this issue to the file of the A.O. for examining the claim of the assessee in accordance with law.
Addition made u/s 68 - A.O. noticed that the assessee society has deposited “Specified bank notes” (demonetized notes) in the account maintained by it with CDCC Bank, Hosadurga - HELD THAT:- Assessee has complied with the requirements of sec.68 of the Act. The AO has also not stated that the assessee has not discharged the responsibility placed on it u/s 68 of the Act. Peculiarly, the AO is taking the view that the assessee was not entitled to collect the demonized notes and accordingly invoked sec.68 of the Act. I am unable to understand as to how the contraventions, if any, of the notification issued by RBI would attract the provisions of sec. 68 of the Income tax Act. In any case, I notice that the assessee has also explained as to why it has collected demonetized notes after the prescribed date of 8.11.2016. The assessee has explained that it has stopped collection after the receipt of notification dated 14.11.2016 issued by RBI, which has clearly clarified that the assessee society should not collect the demonetized notes - deposit of demonetized notes collected by the assessee from its members would not be hit by the provisions of section 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the A.O. to delete this disallowance.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1242 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI BENCH
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Guarantee executed by the Personal Guarantor in favour of the Financial Creditor - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The present Application has been filed through the Resolution Professional for which, due authorization by the Financial Creditor, i.e. Bank of Baroda has also been placed on record. The consent given by the proposed IRP along with the relevant papers have also been placed on record for consideration by this Tribunal - It is seen that Authorization for Assignment (AFA) has also been filed by the applicant and the same is valid upto 10.11.2022.
The Applicant/Financial Creditor has made out a prima-facie case against the Personal Guarantor for initiation of the proceedings under Section 95 of the Code.
application admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1241 - CESTAT DELHI
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - exclusion of the period during when the writ petition remained pending in the High Court or not - Extension of anti-dumping duty for a period of five years from the date of publication of the Notification - HELD THAT:- It is, no doubt, true that though the appeal is required to filed before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of issue of the Notification and said period of 90 days had expired before the writ petition was filed in the Madras High Court on 30 November, 2016, but the time taken for filing the writ petition has been adequately explained in paragraph 6 of the application. After the dismissal of the writ petition and after the certified copy of the order was ready only two days time was taken by the applicant to file the appeal.
The applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the stipulated period. The delay is, accordingly, condoned and the application is allowed.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1240 - SUPREME COURT
Exemption u/s 11 - method of computation of income followed by the assessee - HELD THAT:- It is quite disturbing that despite specific directions made by this Court in its order the matter still lies undisposed on merits.
As the facts on record show, after the matter was remanded to the Tribunal, it called for information in terms of which direction, affidavit was filed on behalf of the assessee and a note was submitted on behalf of the Revenue. The affidavit made the position clear and in the entirety of the process including framing of second question, the challenge with regard to the method of accounting was quite apparent. The submission advanced on behalf of the assessee was therefore required to be dealt with on merits. However, neither the affidavit nor the note referred to by the Tribunal. The conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal were thus not consistent with the order of remand passed by this Court or with the direction issued by the Tribunal itself seeking certain information vide its order - The High Court also erred in affirming the view taken by the Tribunal.
We therefore, set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court and remit the matter back to the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh in the light of the order passed by this Court and in keeping with the direction issued by the Tribunal in its order - Since the matter has been pending for a long time, we direct the Tribunal to conclude the proceedings as early as possible and preferably within three months from the receipt of this order.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1239 - ITAT MUMBAI
TDS u/s 195 - withholding of tax - payment of transponder service fees - nil withholding tax certificate on the payment of transponder services made to the service provider - AO rejected the application of the assessee holding that payment falls under the definition of “Royalty” both under the provisions of the Act as well as under DTAA between India and relevant country - HELD THAT:- Identical payments made for transponder services has been in M/S VIACOM18 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [2022 (1) TMI 939 - ITAT MUMBAI] as not liable for withholding tax. - Decided against revenue.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1238 - ITAT BANGALORE
Revision u/s 263 - validity of addition in 153A order in respect of capital gains - Whether there were no incriminating seized materials suggesting that the capital gains has been wrongly computed? - HELD THAT:- AO himself could not have added any amount invoking section 50C of the Act and the assessing officer could not have disturbed the carry forward of capital loss while framing assessment u/s. 153A of the Act, as no material whatsoever was found in the course of search warranting an enquiry into these aspects in an assessment u/s.143(3) read with sEc.153A of the Act. Hence, the order u/s. 153A in not doing so cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
In the assessment order made u/s. 153A of the Act dated 30.11.2016 for AY 2011- 12, no reference is made to any seized materials and the income assessed in original assessment order dated 28.06.2013 was reiterated. Hence, AO could not have made any addition in 153A order for the assessment year 2011-12 in respect of capital gains as there were no incriminating seized materials suggesting that the capital gains has been wrongly computed. Hence, provisions of section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked to revise of order u/s 153A of the Act. On this short point we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order u/s.263 - Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1237 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Disallowance of transportation charges - HELD THAT:- The complete set up paper book be served on Mr. R.S. Chimanka, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Income Tax within a week. List for final hearing on 10th May, 2022.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1236 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- In view of availability of alternative remedy and in view of the controversies required to be resolved, this appeal is not entertained and consequently the writ petition filed by the appellant- petitioner also not entertained. However it is provided that if appeal is filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal within two weeks from today, the question of limitation shall not be raised by the opponents or by the Tribunal while dealing with the appeal.
In one week from today there shall be no further steps taken by the bank in relation to the impugned notices. However this would be under a condition that petitioner also does not creat any further charge or change the title or possession of the secured asset.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1235 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative efficacious statutory remedy or not - Validity of notices issued either under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation And Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 or under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 - HELD THAT:- These writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioners are having alternative efficacious statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act, 2002; secondly, the guidelines issued by the R.B.I. can be very much looked into by the Debts Recovery Tribunal as well as by the banks while examining the reply if submitted by the petitioners against the notices served upon them and lastly in the facts and circumstances in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited as well as the Pheonix India (both supra), the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not exercised.
The writ petition is dismissed.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1234 - SC ORDER
100% EOU - DTA sales limit - concessional duties of Central excise - Allegation is that goods cleared in DTA, in excess of the permitted 90% of the FOB value of the exports, in contravention of Para 6.8[a] of the Foreign Trade Policy and condition [2] of the notification number 23/2003-CE dated 31-03-2003 - HELD THAT:- There are no good ground and reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The civil appeals are dismissed.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1233 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Operational Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - clubbing of two claims under different work orders for different amount - HELD THAT:- It is clear to the Bench that and as admitted by Petitioner, that there are serious problems with the racking system installed by them and also admits that the system has not yet undergone a safety audit and, therefore, was a non-certified weak racking. The Petitioner itself requested IOCL “not to use the system any further as the same has not been certified for safe use”.
The Bench also notes that both the work orders required 100% completion of the work as a pre-condition for payment. Admittedly, the project has not been completed and that is the reason that the Petitioner cannot claim the payment for such defective and incomplete work. The Bench also notes that demand notice was issued by the Petitioner on 23.10.2019. However, there are genuine pre-existing disputes much prior to the issuance of the demand notice. It is well settled that an applicant u/s 9 of the IBC is required to be dismissed if genuine dispute exists between the parties.
In this Petition the Petitioner has clubbed the payments of two projects, one each at Bongaigaon and Haldia under two different work orders as part of a single Petition. This, as per the Bench, in terms of the clubbing of two claims under different work orders for different amount is not permissible.
Petition dismissed.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1232 - ITAT MUMBAI
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - maintainability of appeal before Tribunal due to low tax effect - HELD THAT:- On looking at the assessment order it is apparent that the total income assessee is ₹ 3,58,24,774/-. The above sum is a provision of maintenance activities income received from Tata Communication Limited as fees for technical services which is taxed under section 115A of the Act at the rate of 25%. The CIT(A) deleted the above addition.
Revenue preferred the appeal before ITAT. The tax involved in the above appeal is at the rate of 25% of the above sum which comes to ₹ 89,55,193/-, therefore, apparently, the appeal of the Revenue is maintainable and not covered by low tax effect instructions. As the above mistake is apparent from the record, the order passed by the ITAT is recalled and Misc. Application filed by the learned Assessing Officer is allowed and registry is directed to fix hearing of this appeal within 90 days by notice to the assessee.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1231 - ITAT DELHI
Delayed payment of employee’s contribution towards EPF and ESI - case of the assessee before lower authorities that it has deposited the employee’s contribution in EPF and ESI before the due date of filing of return of income stipulated u/s 139(1) - HELD THAT:- As decided in PRO INTERACTIVE SERVICE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [2018 (9) TMI 2009 - DELHI HIGH COURT] issue covered in favour of assessee.
Amount paid is allowed as an expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment of Employee’s Provident Fund (EPF) and Employee’s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under Section 2(24)(x) .
Scope of amendment - The claim of deduction of contribution to Employee’s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) and Provident Fund u/s.36(1)(va) could not he denied to the assessee in Assessment Year 2017-18 in quest ion on the basis of amendments made by Finance Act, 2021. For this proposition. we find support from the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of The Continental Restaurant and Cafe Company vs. ITO [2021 (10) TMI 843 - ITAT BANGALORE] AND M/S. ADYAR ANANDA BHAVAN SWEETS INDIA P LTD. [2021 (12) TMI 558 - ITAT CHENNAI] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1230 - ITAT BANGALORE
Revision u/s 263 - Eligibility of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(e) - CIT was of the opinion that though assessee is a cooperative society and carries on the business of providing credit facility to its members, the interest earned from the institutions cannot be allowed as deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) - HELD THAT:- The issues needs to be revisited by the Ld.AO, however, the directions of the Ld. Pr. CIT to make addition in respect of the provision for gratuity as well as expressing the intention of disallowing certain income while computing 80P(2)(e) as well as (a)(i) is not in accordance with law. We also refer that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. [2021 (1) TMI 488 - SUPREME COURT] considered the issue relating to interest income earned and has distinguished the decisions in case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. [2015 (2) TMI 995 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT].
In view of the above, we modify the directions of Ld. Pr. CIT by directing the Ld.AO to carry out de novo verification on the issues considered by the Ld. Pr. CIT in the impugned order having regard to the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra). The assessee is directed to file all requisite details in support of the claim which would be verified by the Ld.AO in accordance with law. Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1229 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH
Replacement of Resolution Professional - appointment of Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta as Resolution Professional by replacing Mr. Khushvinder Singhal, the Resolution Professional - Section 27(3) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT:- It is directed that Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta be appointed as Resolution Professional, replacing Mr. Khushvinder Singhal, the current Resolution Professional. Also, the new Resolution Professional to reconstitute the Committee of Creditors as per the prescribed rules and regulations in the Code.
Mr. Khushvinder Singhal, Resolution Professional, shall hand over the entire record and the assets of the corporate debtor, if any, in his possession to the newly appointed Resolution Professional immediately - Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta shall take over the charge of the entire records and assets of the corporate debtor and perform his duties, as required under the Code and the Regulations - application allowed.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1228 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - eligibility of reasons to believe - HELD THAT:- Reassessment order merely reproduces the notice under Section 147 of the IT Act as a reasoning of the AO which was entirely based on a reappreciation of the accounts. In other words, there was no new material on the basis of which the AO could have formed a subjective satisfaction as to income that supposedly escaped assessment.
This Court is unable to sustain the impugned assessment order since in the considered view of the Court it is not based on any new material and constitutes a mere change of opinion of the AO.
In view of the Petitioner's succeeding in the second point, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the effect of non-compliance by the Department of the mandatory requirement of the law explained by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. [2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT]. The impugned assessment order and the consequential demand notice are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1227 - ITAT JAIPUR
Late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) - Contribution before furnishing the return of income - Scope of amendment - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, admittedly and undisputedly, the employees’ contribution to ESI and PF collected by the assessee from its employees have been deposited well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Further, the ld D/R has referred to the explanation to section 36(1)(va) and section 43B by the Finance Act, 2021 and has also referred to the rationale of the amendment as explained by the Memorandum in the Finance Bill, 2021, however, we find that there are express wordings in the said memorandum which says “these amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years”. In the instant case, the impugned assessment year is assessment year 2018-19 and therefore, the said amended provisions cannot be applied in the instant case. See SHRI GOPALAKRISHNA ASWINI KUMAR VERSUS THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU [2021 (10) TMI 952 - ITAT BANGALORE]
Thus addition so made by the CPC towards the deposit of the employees’s contribution towards ESI and PF though paid before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1226 - ITAT MUMBAI
Estimation of income - Bogus purchases - assessee could not establish the genuineness of the purchases from the non-existent vendors as per information received from Law enforcement agency of State Govt. of Maharashtra i.e. Sales Tax Department - HELD THAT:- Where though the purchases found to be bogus by the Revenue Authorities but sales by the assessee have been accepted as genuine as against these bogus purchases, we are of the considered view that when sales have been accepted being genuine the entire purchases cannot be treated as non genuine to make addition of the entire bogus purchases amount. Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of JK Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (10) TMI 1323 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] upheld the view taken by the Tribunal that in such circumstances gross profit should be in the range of 5% to 12.5% as reasonable estimation of profit element embedded in the bogus purchases
Thus in the light of gross profit earned by the assessee in the last five years the average gross profit comes to 5% which is a reasonable gross profit earned by the assessee on the bogus purchases, hence, we direct the AO to charge the assessee at the gross profit @ 5% on the bogus purchases.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1225 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Seeking time as unable to take proper instructions in the matter - HELD THAT:- There is no problem in granting time to Mr. Sharma, but on the returnable date, a responsible officer well conversant with the present litigation is required to personally remain present in the Court.
Notify this matter on 10th March 2022 on top of the Board.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1224 - ITAT DELHI
Delay in depositing the employee’s contribution of ESI and EPF - amounts have been paid beyond the due date as prescribed in the ESI & PF Act under the IT Act but deposited before the due date of filing of return for the respective Assessment Years - HELD THAT:- Having gone through the Orders of the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal allowing the delayed payment pertaining to employees contribution, Orders of the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal disallowing the delayed payment pertaining to employees contribution, Judgments of various Hon’ble Courts disallowing the delayed payment, Judgments of various Hon’ble Courts disallowing the delayed payment, provisions of Section 2(24)(x), Section 36(1)(va), Section 43B, Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provisions of Finance Act 2021, Memorandum explaining the provisions in Finance Bill, 2021 and the specific amendments which will take effect from 01.04.2021, we hereby hold that no disallowance is called for belated payment of the employee’s contribution to the respective ESI and EPF fund in the case of assessee who have deposited the same before the due date of filing of Income Tax Return. - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|