|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 2075 Records
-
2019 (3) TMI 1880
Refund claim - refund claimed on the ground that service rendered was outside the shores of India and to a foreign party - HELD THAT:- This Court notes that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court is empowered to look into the actual state of affairs and lis between the parties and can always mould reliefs in the interest of both the assessee as well as the Department. Hence, the applications have been taken up for hearing analogously - this Court is of the view that the matter ought to be remanded back for consideration afresh before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata as regards why the case of the revisionist should not be viewed as similarly placed to the applicant to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of SUN-AREA REAL ESTATE PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-I [2015 (5) TMI 885 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that when a foreign bank is maintaining Indian rupees in their account obviously, such Indian rupees was obtained in lieu of foreign exchange.
Matter remanded.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1879
Cheating - forfeiture of earnest money - It was pointed out that complainant had failed to provide the drawings within the timeline provided in Agreement to Sell and later on, it was provided and thereafter land of complainant was demarcated by erecting pillars, as it was known to both the sides that subject property could not be sub-divided - HELD THAT:- The earnest money was received by petitioner-Meera Goyal in terms of Agreement to Sell in question and there is no basis to conclude that the earnest money received by her was used in clearing her bank dues of Rupees Eighteen Crores. Notice to perform Agreement to Sell and subsequent Termination Notice of 30th January, 2013, was duly served by petitioner- Meera Goyal on 30th January, 2013 upon complainant-Priti Saraf. It is so evident from complainant’s reply of 26th February, 2013 which was sent to petitioner’s Notice terminating Agreement to Sell of 24th December, 2011. Pertinently, as per complainant’s reply, deadline of 24th March, 2012 stood novated. Petitioner- Meera Goyal, had obtained sanctioned plan for the property in question from the competent authority and had also cleared her bank dues and, so it cannot be said that any kind of cheating is attributable to petitioner- Meera Goyal and respondent-Ashok Kumar, who was a broker.
Judicial notice can be taken note of the settled legal position that criminal proceedings are not to be initiated casually and before issuing the process, criminal court has to exercise great deal of caution, which has not been adhered to, by the courts below in this case. Considering that arbitration proceedings in respect of Agreement to Sell in question are still pending, this Court would refrains from commenting upon the merits of dispute between the parties but would certainly like to clarify in unequivocal terms that the element of cheating alleged is lacking in the instant case. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that criminal proceedings against Meera Goyal and Ashok Kumar ought to be dropped, as ingredients of offence of cheating are lacking in the instant case. It prima facie appears that Complainant- Priti Saraf’s failure to perform Agreement to Sell cannot be justified because lease of subject property ended before initiation of criminal proceedings.
The impugned orders of 24th April, 2017 and 15th November, 2016 qua petitioner –Meera Goyal are hereby quashed - petition disposed off.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1878
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Depreciation on moulds - higher rate of 30% OR at rate of 15% - Allowance of a deduction claimed by the assessee company towards “excise duty not recovered from the sales” being debited directly to the profit and loss account - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the draft assessment order demonstrates that the Assessing Officer has passed the order without examination of the facts, without making the requisite enquiries and without application of mind, on the issues of “excise duty recovered from sales” and also on the issue of “excess depreciation claimed on moulds”. It is also not the case of the assessee that these two issues were considered by the Assessing Officer and, that an opinion was formed on these issues by the Assessing Officer. The assessee submitted that the claims were made in accordance with law and that annual accounts etc. were filed before the Assessing Officer and that the Assessing Officer had not disturbed its claim. This claim of the assessee should have been examined by the Assessing Officer. This was not done. Filing of details such as annual accounts etc. does not lead us to a conclusion that the Assessing Officer has taken a possible view. The undisputed fact is that the Assessing Officer has not raised any queries nor enquired and consequently has not applied his mind to these two issues. The claim made by the assessee may be legally and factually correct but the same has to be examined by the Assessing Officer.
In our considered opinion, as the Assessing Officer has passed this assessment order, without enquiry and application of mind on these two issues, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
CIT has applied his mind to both these issues by considering, the facts and the law as well as the explanation of the assessee. He has indicated as to how the assessment order in his opinion was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, to the extent of these two issues. Hence this argument of the ld. Counsel for the assessee by relying on the judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.G. Housing Projects (supra), is not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. Pr. CIT, giving direction to the Assessing Officer to examine both these issues properly and adjudicate the issues afresh, after giving the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.
Assessee has placed evidences and made detailed submissions on merits on the two issue that where the subject matter of revision. In our view, to express a view on the merits of the claim of the assessee at this stage, is not proper. The facts have to be examined by the Assessing Officer. The ld. Pr. CIT has examined the explanation and facts submitted by the assessee and has come to a conclusion that the Assessing Officer has to examine the same. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine both these issues independently, without getting influenced by any of the observations of the ld. CIT on these issues afresh in his order u/s 263 of the Act and adjudicate both these issues in accordance with law. - Decided against assessee.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1877
Allowability of interest on loan as business expenditure - assessee is having commercial property which is rented and in order to provide the equipment and furniture, assessee has taken loan from bank and the relevant interest was charged to P&L A/c as business expenditure - AO has rejected the claim of the assessee and treated the consolidated receipt of rent and hire charges as income from house property - HELD THAT:- We have to see the intention of the assessee whether the letting was the doing of a business or to exploitation of his property by an owner. The assessee when exploited the property to derive rental income it has to be held that the income realized by him by way of rental income from a building if the property with other asset attached to the building to be assessed as 'income from house property' only. The only exceptions are cases where the letting of the building is inseparable from letting of the machinery, plant and furniture. In such cases, it has to be held that the rental would not have been realized but for the letting out of the machinery, plant or furniture along with such building and therefore, rental received for the building is to be assessed under the head 'income from other sources'.
In the present case, on the facts of the case, it is clear that the assessee as the owner of the building was only exploiting the property as owner by letting out the same and realizing income by way of rent. Such rental income was liable to be assessed under the head 'income from house property.' The various assets let out to the tenants are incidental to letting out the building being integral part of the letting. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) and restore that of the assessing officer. This ground of the revenue is allowed.
Assessee has availed loan to arrange the relevant fixed assets in the building and incurred interest expenditure - Since, the assessee was claiming them as business expenditure as the income was declared as business income. As the authorities have treated the business income as income from house property, the interest expenditure is connected to the earning of income and head of income was changed due to the facts of the case, the relevant expenditure is accordingly claimable u/s 24(b) of the Act. Merely accepting the income and excluding the related expenditure is not proper. Therefore, we direct the AO to allow the relevant expenditure, which assessee has incurred to earn the rental income. Accordingly, additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1876
Rejection of deemed extension of mining lease - HELD THAT:- The order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai in company petition is set aside. The application filed by the first respondent is restored on the file of the NCLT, Chennai.
Petition disposed off.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1875
DFIA Scheme - fraudulent export of garments to Dubai - exoneration of the petitioner by the adjudicating authority - criminal prosecution launched against petitioner on the same set of facts - prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence - relief under section 482 of Cr.PC.
Whether on account of exoneration of the petitioner by the adjudicating authority, criminal prosecution launched against petitioner on the same set of facts and circumstances can be allowed to continue? - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal was of the opinion that there was absolute lack of material tangible evidence against the petitioner and whatever documentary evidence collected by the Department did not conclusively link the petitioner to the alleged offence. The Tribunal was of the opinion that solely on the basis of uncorroborated confession of the co-accused, petitioner cannot be found guilty of the alleged offences and consequently the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the petitioner. It is borne on record that as against the order of the Tribunal, the Commissioner of Customs preferred an appeal before this Court in CSTA No. 8/2016. The said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn - Since the petitioner is exonerated on merits on the very same set of facts and is held innocent by the adjudicating authority, in my view, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances, cannot be allowed to be continued, on the underlying principle of 'higher standard of proof' in criminal cases. Therefore, solely on this ground, the proceedings initiated against petitioner are liable to be quashed - question is answered in favour of the petitioner.
Whether respondent has made out sufficient grounds for prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence? - HELD THAT:- In the case in hand, except the confession of the coaccused, the prosecution has not rested its case on any other piece of evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused. Under the said circumstances, the prosecution of the accused person solely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused that too in the backdrop of exoneration of the petitioner in the adjudication proceedings, in my view, the material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to proceed against the petitioner for the alleged offence - issue is also answered in favour of the petitioner.
Whether petitioner is entitled for the relief under section 482 of Cr.PC? - HELD THAT:- No doubt, the records indicate that the warrant issued against the petitioner has remained unexecuted. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, it is not proper to deny the relief to the petitioner solely on the ground that he has failed to surrender himself before the criminal Court. As I have come to the conclusion that the material collected by the investigating agency prima facie are not sufficient to make out a ground for prosecution of the petitioner for the offences charged against him, in my view, the petitioner cannot be denied the relief under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - the prosecution initiated against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.
Petition allowed.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1874
Estimation of income - Bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- Assuming that the entire purchases from Rajasthan Metals was bogus, then it would be commercially impossible for the assessee to sell ₹ 5.54 crores of goods. Moreover, sales effected by the assessee has been accepted by the Sales Tax Department.
The assessee has given complete quantitative details in the form of stock register of raw material as S.S. Patti which is exhibited at page E-3/81 to E-3/109 of the paper book. A perusal of the same clearly reveals that the raw materials, in fact, entered the business of the assessee which were used for making final product and accordingly, sales were executed by the assessee.
It appears that the assessee must have purchased the raw material from the grey market and must have taken supporting purchase bills from the accommodation entry provider which means that raw material were, in fact, purchased and there was movement of the same which enables the assessee to produce its final product. In our considered opinion, over and above the additions sustained by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee must have incurred some expenditure in procuring accommodation bills which we estimate at 5% of the total purchases from Rajasthan metals which is ₹ 1.45 crores which means that the assessee must have incurred expenditure of ₹ 7 lakhs for procuring accommodation bills. Modifying the findings of the ld. CIT(A), we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to ₹ 13.43 lakhs. - Decided partly in favour of revenue allowed.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1873
Condonation of delay of 438 days in filing review petition - HELD THAT:- The review application is predicated on a subsequent larger Bench judgment of 6.12.2019 while the order in question in the present case was pronounced on 27.03.2019. The review petition has been filed on 7.7.2020 - Even if the contention of the applicant was to be considered, it is based on a subsequent judgment while no grievance was made qua the judgment in question for all the period of time. Not only that, the larger bench judgment is dated 6.12.2019 and the review application has been filed after 7 months.
The delay in filing review petition is not liable to be condoned and the petition is dismissed on the ground of limitation.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1872
Detention of goods as well as vehicle - all the relevant documents are available for the transaction - petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to furnish bank guarantee towards the total liability arising out of award - HELD THAT:- The present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to release the goods and vehicle in question within a period of seven days from toda8y after imposing the conditions, subject to the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee to the tune of ₹ 20,51,833/-and bank guarantee for ₹ 1,02,591/- as a penalty plus tax amount.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1871
Income from House Property - CIT-A confirming the action of AO in charging notional income considering Annual Letting Value of one unsold flat which is closing stock of the appellant treated as “ Income from House Property” and made addition - HELD THAT:- The facts and the issue involved in the present case are similar to the facts of the case and the issue involved in the case of Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (11) TMI 985 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein as deleted the addition confirmed by the CIT (A) on account of notional rent determined by the AO by holding that the ALV of the unsold unit of assessee project is assessable under the head ‘income from house property’. Since, the findings of the Ld.CIT (A) is not in accordance with the decision of the coordinate Bench rendered in the case of Ferani Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and allow the appeal of the assessee and direct the AO to delete the addition made under the head ‘income from house property’.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1870
Revision u/s 263 - AO, before completing the assessment, failed to make proper and adequate enquiry with regard to the TDS obligation on payments made to Ansys Inc., USA and disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act - HELD THAT:- It is clear from earlier paras the CIT has discussed the nature of payments as being in the nature of royalty, the conclusion of the CIT for invoking jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act are justified in the light of failure on the part of AO to make enquiries, which he ought to have made before completing assessment - mere reference of international transaction on purchase of software to the TPO for determination of ALP cannot be the basis to say that the AO made adequate and due enquiries before completing the assessment. The law is well settled that failure on the part of the AO to make proper and adequate enquiries renders his order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. See GEE VEE ENTERPRISES VERSUS ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI I, AND OTHERS [1974 (10) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
There was a failure on the part of AO to make any enquiry with regard to payments made to Ansys Inc., USA in the light of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act was rightly invoked by the CIT. We are also of the view that the CIT has remanded the matter to the AO for fresh consideration and has not concluded on the issue, as was sought to be canvassed by the ld. counsel for the assessee before us. Therefore, the Assessee is at liberty to agitate on the issue on merits without any fetters. - Decided against assessee.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1869
Income from house property - ALV determination - ascertainment of ALV where the flat was vacant during the year - CIT(A) holding that ALV of the property as determined by municipal authority is the yardstick for determining annual value for the purpose of determining the income from house property as against the ALV computed by the AO at a sum at which the property is expected to let out from year to year - HELD THAT:- In the case of DCIT vs. Laxmi Jain in [2014 (11) TMI 1157 - ITAT MUMBAI] by following the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smitaben N. Ambani vs. CWT [2009 (1) TMI 430 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] High Court held that the ALV of the vacant flat has to be made on the basis of municipal ratable value and thus dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The said decision of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Laxmi Jain [2018 (4) TMI 1644 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] on the ground that there is no substantial question of law arising from the Revenue’s appeal.
In the case of Harsh Jain vs. DCIT [2015 (7) TMI 1253 - ITAT MUMBAI] has held that the ALV of the property has to be computed as per municipal ratable value as deemed income from the house property. The said decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Harsh Jain [2019 (2) TMI 537 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
We are of the view that the ALV of the vacant flat has to be determined on the basis of municipal ratable value for the purpose of assessing the income under the head “house property”. Accordingly, we are inclined to allow the appeal filed by the assessee and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue
-
2019 (3) TMI 1868
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - financial creditor - existence of debt of dispute or not - Time limitation - HELD THAT:- By order of the hon'ble High Court, the claim of the petitioner is to be decided by the outcome in a civil suit by a civil court under the CPC.
The civil suit, filed under the order of the hon'ble High Court, was rejected as the claim is barred by limitation and the appeal against the order in civil suit is still pending. In light of the above facts, it is clear that the existence of debt is to be decided by the civil court and unless the outcome of the civil suit is reached, the claim of the petitioner is sub judice, and cannot be said to be due.
For a petition under section 7 of the I and B Code as per the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank [2017 (9) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT] this Tribunal needs to be satisfied that the "debt", which may also include a disputed claim, is due. Debt may not be due if it is not payable in law. If this Tribunal is satisfied that the debt is not due, then it may reject the petition.
This Tribunal is of the view that the claim of the petitioner is contingent upon the final decision of the civil suit and unless the same is decided the debt of the petitioner cannot be said to be in existence and due - there is no question of default in repayment of debt.
Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1867
'Waste generated' during the Solvent Extraction process or not - Mahua De-oiled cake/ De-oiled Rice Bran being used as an ingredient of Cattle Feed, Poultry Feed and other animal feeds - input tax credit of GST paid on purchase of Mahua Oil Cake/Rice Bran Oil cake - HELD THAT:- The de-oiled cake is neither a waste nor a by product and hence all the cited case laws become irrelevant to the present case. In fact two equally and completely commercially viable products emerge during the manufacturing process of solvent extraction viz. the oil and the de-oiled cake. Both these products are sold by a company with equal emphasis and both are commercially lucrative to the solvent extractor.
In fact, the pellets undergo Desolventising process i.e. separation of normal-Hexane from the De-oiled bran subsequent to which the de-oiled bran is chemically tested for their oil and silica content to meet clients' specifications and finally it is sent to the bagging section for packing into branded unit packaging. It is unimaginable that investment into a desolventising plant and bagging unit will be made for a product which is allegedly 'unintended' or 'mere technical necessity'. In fact the de-oiled cake is a very much intended product in as much as it may affect the overall financial health of the company. Thus, through an elaborate process, chemical testing and packing, the de-oiled cakes are finally manufactured made marketable. So, the appellant's contention that the de-oiled cake is not manufactured but is generated during the course of manufacture of extracted oil, is contrary to the technical position and facts.
Having settled the issue of sale of de-oiled cake being supply, it can be concluded that Section 17(2) of the GST Act 2017 is very much applicable. But first it has to be decided as to whether the specific items are exempted - De-oiled Rice Bran has been fully exempted from CGST vide entry no. 102A of Notification No.07/2018-CT(R) dated 25.01.2018. So, in terms of Section 17(2) of CGST Act 2017, the input credit attributable to the supply of this exempted goods i.e. de-oiled rice bran has to be reversed by the appellant.
Classification of product de-oiled mahua cake - HELD THAT:- The product de-oiled mahua cake is not covered under heading 2304 or 2305 as different products have been classified under the same. Accordingly, we find support in the claim of the noticee that ‘de-oilded mahua cake' is classifiable under heading 2306 of chapter 23 of Customs Tariff Act” - Since 5% GST is applicable on the goods falling under chapter heading 2306, under nod. No. 01/2017 Central Tax (rate) dated 28 June, 2017, as amended, the appellant is required to pay GST @5% on the supply of de-oiled Mahua cake accordingly entitled to avail input tax credit on the same.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1866
Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record - typographical error - HELD THAT:- As per the request of applicant, exercising the power vested in the Authority U/s 102 of the CGST Act, 2017, a rectification order is issued as under:-
“Rudhrahhishek Enterprises Limited” and GSTIN “09AAGCR1735AIZP”,
i) In the subject mentioned at page 01 of the order no. 22.
ii) In paragraph 01 at page no. 01 of the order no. 22.
iii) At page no. 08 of the order no. 22.
will be read as "Rudrabhishek Enterprises Limited" and GSTIN "09AAACR0707L2ZD".
-
2019 (3) TMI 1865
Classification of services - composite supply of services or not - supply of parts or not - repair services carried out by the Applicant under the Dealership Agreement with HMIL, to fulfill the warranty obligation of HMIL - entire repair services including supply of spares - to be classified under S. No 25 in Notification 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28th June, 2017 / parallel Notification issued under SGST Act subjected to tax at the rate of 9% under CGST? - Section 2(30) of CGST Act/ Section 2(30) of SGST Act, 2017.
HELD THAT:- Applicant are mainly providing 'Repair & Maintenance Services' to their customers under “Warranty Repair Service” by servicing of their vehicles under Warranty period, In the event of defective parts/components, they replace such parts/components which appear to be just incidental or ancillary to the main activity of 'Repairing Services'. The supply of such parts/components in the warranty repair activity is integral to the “Warranty Repair Service” in as much as without replacing such parts/components the “Warranty Repair Service” could not be executed. Therefore, the supplies of Labour Services and Parts/components together under “Warranty Repair Service” are naturally bundled and have been supplied in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business.
Since the supply of repair services in the present case, the supply of both, goods and services are made in conjunction with each other in the ordinary course of business and therefore, considering the provisions of the GST laws we find that supply of services/ parts is naturally bundled, with the supply of parts being incidental to the supply of services and therefore, such contract are to be considered as a 'composite supply' of services where the principal supply is services and the supply of goods (Parts) is incidental to such supply of services.
The provisions of agreement between HMIL and PSCL read with definition of 'composite supply' as defined under Section 2(30) of CGST Act, 2017/SGST Act, 2017, it is to clarify that following ruling is applicable if repair service provided by the applicant shall be covered under 'composite supply' if -
(a) Primarily 'Repair service' is provided under warranty period,
(b) Parts are replaced as incidental to repair service under warranty period in ordinary course of business, and
(c) PCSL is being reimbursed by HMIL for labour charge and parts under warranty period.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1864
Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - appellant seeks condonation of 3 days' delay in filing the instant appeal on account of illness being of old age rendering him unable to undertake journey to Delhi for preferring the appeal - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order it is found that the certified copy of the order was prepared on 25.9.2018 while the order had been pronounced on 20th September, 2018. Period of 30 days has been prescribed for filing the appeal in terms of Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 which is extendable by 15 days. Admittedly 45 days had already expired by the time when the instant appeal was filed on 16.11.2018. That being the factual position, this Appellate Tribunal not having jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond 45 days, the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1863
Remand order - Calculation of average investments (confined to the income generating part thereof) - exclusion of tax exempt income derived from strategic investments - HELD THAT:- The observation of the ITAT on the latter aspect, i.e. exclusion of tax exempt income derived from a strategic investments, is not a correct view in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2018 (3) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT] . Accordingly, the observations of the ITAT on this aspect are set aside.
Observations with respect to the calculation of disallowance under Section 14A being confined to investments that derived tax exempt income are valid in the light of the Division Bench ruling in ACB India Ltd. v. ACIT [2015 (4) TMI 224 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
ITAT’s order, to the extent that it makes observations with respect to exclusion of income derived from strategic investments, is hereby set aside. Appeal partly allowed.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1862
Disallowance of stock appreciation right - Disallowance on account of the difference between purchase price of Stock Appreciation Right (‘SAR’) and the sale price of such SAR at the time of its exercise by the employees of the appellant holding the same to be capital loss not allowable business deduction - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2017 (10) TMI 589 - ITAT DELHI] difference between the sale price of the share and the purchase price of the share was claimed by the assessee as deduction as employee compensation. In the identical circumstances. With respect to one of the group companies, Religare commodities Ltd for assessment year 2008-09 identical issue arose before the coordinate bench [2017 (1) TMI 783 - ITAT DELHI] claim of the assessee with respect to both the above items were allowed. The above expenditure on account of employee stock option scheme is an ascertained liability for deduction - the expenses debited is cost of employee stock option plan in the profit and loss account is an allowable expenditure. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (3) TMI 1861
Deduction u/s 10A - AO excluding the interest income earned while determining the profits eligible for the purpose of computation of deduction under Section 10A - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal in Assessment Year 2009-10 [2018 (5) TMI 130 - ITAT MUMBAI] by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd. [2017 (11) TMI 205 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held that the interest income earned on funds placed in the bank was entitled to benefits of Sec. 10A.
The Tribunal further noticed that the interest income earned had a nexus with the borrowing raised from the bank which was, in turn, utilised for carrying on the eligible business. Similarly, on the issue of interest earned on the security deposit placed for obtaining electricity connection is concerned, the same was also held eligible for the benefits of Sec. 10A of the Act following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Dania Oro Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (1) TMI 240 - ITAT MUMBAI]
Thus claim of assessee for inclusion of interest income for the purposes of Sec. 10A of the Act is accepted. Assessing Officer is directed to compute deduction under Section 10A of the Act by considering the aforesaid interest income. Appeal of the assessee is allowed,
............
|
9911796707
