|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 2184 Records
-
2018 (5) TMI 1970
Confiscation of imported goods - redemption fine - penalty - classification of imported goods - Mari Gold Seeds - it was certified that the imported goods were contaminated with Quarantine Weed i.e., “Viola Arvensis” - HELD THAT:- The appellant has argued that vide their letter dated 16-11-2011, they have only applied for permission for re-export but did not waive the issue of show cause notice and PH. But the fact remains that the appellant was aware of the fact that the imported consignment has not been cleared by Plant Quarantine authorities. Consequently, the non-issuance of an explicit show cause notice cannot be held to be a serious violation of the principles of natural justice.
We have already upheld the order for confiscation of the imported goods. The redemption fine imposed is reasonable and hence, we find no reason to interfere with the imposition of redemption fine of ₹ 30,00,000/- - The appellants appear to have taken of reasonable steps by obtaining Psyto Sanitary Certificates at the Port of Export certifying the seeds to be free of contamination. The penalty imposed on the appellant is not justified. Hence, the penalty is set aside.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1969
Compensation for loss - execution of awards - Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - whether the interpretation adopted is in the process of giving a true effect to the decree or they have gone beyond the decree by drawing a new decree?
HELD THAT:- In a contractual matter, when the decree is silent with regard to the reckoning date of conversion of foreign currency in to Indian rupees, what would be the methodology to be followed by the executing court is no more res integra, as this court has an occasion to deal with elaborately in the case of Forasol v. ONGC, [1983 (10) TMI 234 - SUPREME COURT], the facts of that case revolved around a contract entered into between ONGC and Forasol for carrying out structural drilling in relation to the exploration of oil in the Jaisalmer area. The contract mandated a part payment in the foreign currency i.e., French francs. Due to belligerent situation prevalent between India and Pakistan in 1965, the contract was suspended.
We are unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the NCDRC has gone beyond the decree and the NCDRC ought not to have gone into clause 17 are meritless hence rejected. In a case of this nature the only remedy available to the court is either to look at the terms of the contract or in the absence of the same to follow the procedure laid down by this court in the above stated judgment. The order passed by NCDRC is strictly in accordance with the settled legal position and we do not find any infirmity with the order.
Without undertaking a piece meal approach as suggested by the appellant herein, interpreting the decree in a manner which may amount to substitution of a new decree is not countenanced under law. Therefore, it is clear that as per the insurance contract, the respondent insurer was required to pay the insurance claim in accordance with the conversion rate of the invoiced foreign currency in Indian rupee as per the bank buying rate of interest at Mumbai on the date of subject shipment for which the invoice was issued.
There are no grounds to interfere with the order of the NCDRC which is based on sound principles of law - appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1968
Bogus purchases - estimation of profit - HELD THAT:- No cogent and convincing reason to reduce the profit ratio on the sale and purchase @ 1%. The AO has rejected the books of account on seeing the facts and circumstances of the case and assessed the income of the assessee @ 3% on sale and purchase. CIT(A) reduced the the same @ 1.5% of profit on sale and purchase. No distinguishable material has been produced before us to which it can be assumed that the same is liable to be reduced to the extent of 1% profit on sale and purchase.
The assessment has been effected on the basis of the estimation basis by rejecting the books of account. The order of subsequent years passed by AO nowhere seems to binding upon us. Each year is the different year and facts of each year is liable to be considered on seeing the facts and circumstances of the case separately. We found no justifiable ground to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. Therefore, these issues are decided in favour of the revenue against the assessee.
Addition on unexplained share transaction - HELD THAT:- Profit on sale and purchase of share was adopted @ 3% in view of the statement made by the Shri M.B. Joshi director of the appellant company. However, at the time of hearing before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the income @ 3% is on the higher side. No comparable prices were produced on record. The CIT(A) assessed the income on the basis of other transaction @ 1.5%, therefore, he found reasonable to assess the profit ratio on account of sale and purchase oh shares @ 1.5%. No distinguishable material is on record. The assessment was based on the estimation basis. We nowhere found any material to interfere the finding of the CIT(A) on record. Therefore, we confirmed the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and decide these issues in favour of the revenue against the assessee.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1967
Expenses pertaining to foreign travel by the Directors and employees of the company - A.O has disallowed 10% of the expenses as the personal site seeing expenses cannot be ruled out - HELD THAT:- the said disallowance is held to be unjustified and is hereby ordered to be deleted. Since the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is based on the order of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT Vs. Rico Auto Industries Ltd [2013 (10) TMI 926 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] involving similar grounds, we decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
Disallowance of bad debts claimed by the assessee on account of transactions with the distributors who in turn supply products of the assessee to the retailers - HELD THAT:- For the A.Y. 2013-14, the bad debts claimed by the assessee are on account of publicity charges not recovered from customers. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim only on the basis that no efforts were made by the assessee to recover the amounts.
As per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT] bad debts need not be proven to be irrecoverable. It is sufficient if the same are written off. Since the issue is squarely covered by the provisions under section 36(1)(vii) and section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961, and since it is written off as irrecoverable, we decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue
Disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) on purchase of Land - HELD THAT:- Assessee has got sufficient funds as per the balance sheet as on year ending 2010. The share capital is of ₹ 2.57 Crores and the reserves and surplus are to the tune of ₹ 115.35 Crores. Hence, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bright Enterprises Private Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 342 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] and judgment in the case of a CIT Vs. Omax bikes limited [2015 (8) TMI 1290 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] , Hero Cycles Vs. CIT [2016 (2) TMI 1081 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] wherein it has been held that if sufficient interest free funds are available the presumption is that the advances have been made out of such funds and no disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) is called for, we hereby decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
Deduction u/s 80IC - HELD THAT:- Reduction of profits to the extent of 10% has been done by the Assessing Officer on estimate basis without demonstrating by way of evidence whether any expenses on account of knowhow, goodwill, trade name, etc. had been incurred by the Phillaur unit with respect to Tahliwal unit . The same has not been demonstrated even before us. Further as rightly held by the Ld.CIT(A) , the provisions of sect ion 80IA (8) and 80IA (10) cannot be invoked in the present case in the absence of any transact ion between the two units. The Ld. DR has not pointed out any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) . We, therefore, uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in deleting the reduction of profits of the Tahliwal unit by 10% of the profits - Decided against revenue
Disallowance of Section 80IC on Job Work - HELD THAT:- As decided in the case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2006-07 the basic process is carried out by the appellant is the same whether the production is done for itself or job work. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Impel Forge and Allied industries Ltd [2008 (12) TMI 370 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] has held that the assessee is at liberty to manufacture for itself or others which makes no difference for the purpose of deduction under section 80IB of the act. In view of the same, the reduction in the claim made by the appellant under section 80IC on this account deserves to be deleted. These grounds of appeal are allowed
Deduction u/s 80IB - breads and buns - HELD THAT:- Assessee is an SSI unit as defined u/s 80IB(14(g) of the Act and is not manufacturing a prohibited item specified in the 11th Schedule of the Act and thus qualifies for deduction of its profits u/s 80IB of the Act as rightly held by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) .
Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- We agree with the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) that Rule 8D cannot be applied for the year 2007-08. However it cannot be said that the assessee has not incurred any expenditure in respect of any exempt income. The total investment made by the company or to the tune of ₹ 76.12 crores and the dividend earned is ₹ 53.11 Crores. The assessee has got own funds for these investments which have been received in the form of share capital from M/s Goldman Sachs (Mauritius) to whom 360000 shares have been allotted. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case a reasonable estimate of the expenses needs to be determined as Rule 8D cannot be invoked. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has reasonably estimated the disallowance keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case.
Addition u/s 8D(2)(i)&(ii) - In the decision in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Vs. CIT (Alld) [2014 (9) TMI 791 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that half percent of average investment is justified on account of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) on account of other expenses. Since the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) is based on the orders of the ITAT and the Hon’ble High Court, we decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
Disallowance u/s14A cannot be considered in determination of tax under section 115JB - HELD THAT:- Disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be added while computing book profits as per section 115JB as Explanation to that section does not specifically mentions section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. See ACIT VS. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI]
Treatment of the sale tax subsidy as revenue receipt or capital receipt - HELD THAT:- As major guidelines have been framed by the Hon’ble Courts and since the nature of the capital subsidy and revenue subsidy is to be determined by going through the entire scheme of the Government, for determination of purpose test and to examine the whether the issue would be covered under the scheme to assist creation of capital asset or an operational subsidy post installation, the matter is being remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh keeping in view the judgments and the nature of the scheme and adjudicate the issue by a speaking order in accordance with law.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1966
Sales in cash of bullion being unexplained in the absence of detail and corroboration - whether cash sales of gold by the assessee is part of the trading transaction and the trader buying the gold would fall u/s 14A(3)? - HELD THAT:- CIT (A) has categorically mentioned that prima facie there is no dispute as regards recording of transaction in the books of account and quantitative details for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 includes inward or outward transactions of gold of 10 Kgs. during the year under assessment.
CIT (A) has proceeded on the basis of surmises that, “the business transactions of jewellery and bullion dealers are highly cash intensive in nature and it is always apprehended that they could be used for flow of black money into the system and has referred to section 115BBE”. CIT (A) also mentioned that “during the year under assessment, mention of PAN was made mandatory w.e.f. 01.07.2011 for bullion purchase of ₹ 5,00,000/- or more at a time.”
So far as question of making mention of PAN as mandatory w.e.f. 01.07.2011 for all jewellery/bullion purchases of ₹ 5,00,000/- or more is concerned, when it is undisputed case of the assessee that the sale of gold in question was made on 03.05.2011 and sold on 05.05.2011, the provisions for mentioning PAN which came into effect w.e.f. 01.07.2011 are not attracted. Ld. CIT (A) in para 4.3(b) at page 18 has himself recorded that, “Interestingly and coincidentally, in our case, the appellant has undertaken these transactions just before that”. CIT(A) despite being satisfied that the provisions are not applicable in case of the assessee but proceeded to enhance the income of the assessee to the tune of ₹ 2,24,99,000/- on account of sales in cash of bullion being unexplained in the absence of detail and corroboration.
In the face of the fact that books of account duly audited by the auditors have been accepted by the dl. CIT (A) and no adverse inference has been drawn and provisions contained u/s 115BBE are not attracted, the income has been enhanced by ld. CIT (A) apparently on the basis of surmises which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence following the decision rendered by Hon’ble High Courts and Tribunal in CIT-II vs. Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2012 (4) TMI 423 - DELHI HIGH COURT] , R.B. Jessaram Fetehcahnd (Sugar Dept.) vs. CIT, Bombay City-II [1969 (7) TMI 10 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Kishore Jeram Bhai Khaniya, Prop. M/s. Poonam Enterprises, Mp-83 [2014 (5) TMI 699 - ITAT DELHI] addition made by ld. CIT (A) is ordered to be deleted. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1965
Maintainability of petition - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its debt - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT:- The occurrence of default is established, According to the Bank Statement on record, between 23-09-2017 to 01-12-2017, no credit of ₹ 84,33,605/- is appearing. Records of the case contains the monthly Bills of Professional Fees and evidence of deduction of TDS on Form No.26AS, however, no evidence is produced from the side of the Respondent that either paid the amount or disputed the claim. Several opportunities have been granted, Notices were issued, but the Respondent preferred silence. On the date of hearing one of the Directors remained present but not seriously contested. Accordingly, the impugned Debt is held to be still outstanding from the Corporate Debtor. Considering the circumstances mentioned, this Petition under consideration deserves to be "Admitted".
Petition admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1964
Condonation of delay of 1164 days in filing appeal - HELD THAT:- The delay has been sought to be explained, as the Accountant who was looking for accounts and matters relating to payment of taxes, received a copy of the impugned order but it placed in wrong file and by the end of June, 2014 he left the job without any intimation. The explanation is given by the applicant seems to be very sketchy - In view of the foregoing, the appellant has not satisfactorily explained the delay.
Application dismissed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1963
CENVAT credit - trading activity/exempt services - non-maintenance of separate accounts in respect of the exempted and taxable services - Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules - HELD THAT:- Para 13 of the order-in-appeal referred to Rule 6 (3A)(e) of the CENVAT Credit Rules to charge interest and modifies para 29(iii) of the order-in-original accordingly. Accordingly, it is found from the order-in-original that Rule 6(3A)(e) was not referred to in it and it does not appear that appellant was issued a notice invoking this rule. The appellant should be given an opportunity to defend himself against the provisions of this rule and the interest applicable there-under.
Matter remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for denovo adjudication after following the principles of natural justice - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1962
Disallowance u/s 43B - where the service tax calculated but had not paid to the central government account - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the service tax account is not routed through the profit and loss account but through suspense account which means that there was no debit to the profit and loss account on account of liability of service tax account or there is no claim by the assessee for deduction of service tax payable. This issue was considered by the Hon'ble Bombay high court in the case of CIT Vs. Knight Frank (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (8) TMI 1096 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - we allow the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1961
Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147 - proceeding initiated against the assessee by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on the allegations of evasion of import duty - HELD THAT:- On near identical facts, similar proceeding was sought to be initiated against a partner of the assessee firm for the same assessment year. Both the Commissioner and the Tribunal, however, found that no re-assessment proceeding could be initiated merely because of action taken by the Customs Department.
We also had the occasion to examine similar issue for the same assessment year concerning an associate firm of the assessee, M/s. More International [2018 (2) TMI 1929 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and we upheld the order of the Tribunal in that appeal. In our judgment, the reasoning of the Tribunal in the decision which we upheld is also almost identical to that in the present case, in relation to the order appealed against. So far as the present appeal is concerned, no distinguishing feature has been brought to our notice by Mr. Chowdhury which could persuade us to take a different view. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1960
Levy of late filing fee u/s. 234E against the order passed u/s. 200A - scope of amendment - HELD THAT:- The issue before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia [2015 (2) TMI 412 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] was with respect to constitution validity of the section introduced by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01/06/2015 but was not abreast of the applicability of section 234E of the Act by the AO while processing TDS statement.
So far as in LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS [2015 (8) TMI 379 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] it was held that intimation raising demand prior to 01/06/2015, u/s 200A of the Act, levying fee u/s 234E, is not valid’. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench, hold that amendment in section 200A(1) of the Act is procedural in nature, therefore, the AO while processing the TDS statements, returns in the present set of appeals of the period prior to 01/06/2015, was not empowered to charge fee u/s 234E of the Act, hence, the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 200A in the appeals before us, does not stand, therefore, the demand raised by way of charging fee u/s 234E is not valid, resultantly, the same is deleted as the intimation issued by the Assessing Officer in the present case, for the period prior to 01/06/2015, is beyond the scope of adjustment provided u/s 200A of the Act. Thus, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1959
TDS u/s 194C - Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - assessee submitted a copy of the return of income of M/s. Manisha Industries and a certificate that the amount in question was accounted for both in their books and was reflected in the return of income and taxes were paid on this receipt from the assessee - HELD THAT:- Set aside this issue to the file of the A.O. with the direction to verify whether M/s. Manisha Industries has accounted for this amount in its income and filed its return of income for the assessment years 2012-13. If it has done so, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and accept the income returned by the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1958
Denial of exemption u/s 10(5) read with Rule 2B - reimbursement of Leave Travel Concession involving foreign leg through circuitous route as long as the employees designated place is in India for his leave travel concession and he actually visits the place as designated and the bank has not paid any amount for foreign tour which has been undertaken by the employee from his own pocket - HELD THAT:- We find that before the AO assessee has taken stand that assessee is not liable to deduct the TDS on payment of Leave Travel Concession which include the foreign travel and this stand was not accepted by the AO. Before the AO assessee has not raised any plea with regard to the payment of taxes on the receipt of such Leave Travel Concession by the employees/recipient. In such type of situation, where the assessee has not placed the relevant information with regard to the recipient/employees for payment of tax on such receipts of Leave Travel Concession the onus cannot shifts upon the Assessing Officer.
As carefully examined the orders of the Tribunal in the case of Aligarh Muslim University and Branch Manager Allahabad Bank [2017 (8) TMI 278 - ITAT AGRA] and we find that in those cases Tribunal has held that where the relevant information is placed before the AO, AO is required to make necessary verification and without establishing that the recipient of such payment has not offered it to tax the assessee cannot be held to be in default.
Since the assessee has not placed such information before the AO, we are of the view that AO is not under the obligation to make such enquiries without having the basic information. Therefore, we are of the view that let this matter go back to the AO for making a necessary verification with regard to payment of tax of such receipt by the recipient. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the AO with the directions to re-adjudicate the issue afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the light of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. The assessee is also directed to place all relevant information with regard to the recipient of such payments before the AO. Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1957
Royalty receipt - payment received by the assessee for network access and related services for the right of access and use of software - acquisition of copyrighted software OR copyright over such software - taxable @ 10% as per the DTAA with the Netherlands - P.E. in India - business income taxed in India - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case [2017 (4) TMI 763 - ITAT MUMBAI] none of the conditions mentioned in section 14 of the ‘Copyright Act’ is applicable as held by the learned CIT(A); and is also is evident from the terms of MSA, because no such rights has been given by the assessee to the IT Service providers.
Further by making use or having access to the computer programs embedded in the software, it cannot be held that either WIPRO/IBM are using the process that has gone into the software or that they have acquired any rights in relation to the process as such. The software continues to be owned by the assessee and what WIPRO/IBM is getting mere access to the software. The source code embedded in the software has not been imparted to them. Hence, there is no use or right to use of any process as held by the learned AO. Hence, the finding of the learned CIT(A) that the payment in question cannot be reckoned as “royalty” is factually and legally correct and the same is upheld.
Thus, we hold that for all the years the payments received by the assessee from WIPRO/IBM in pursuance to the MSA cannot be treated as “royalty” under Article 12(4) of the India-Netherland DTAA. Thus, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee
-
2018 (5) TMI 1956
Classification of imported goods - Computer Multi Media Speaker with FM/USB/SD card - whether classified under Customs Tariff Heading 85182200 or under CTH 85279100 as Stereo Systems containing Radio Receiver? - HELD THAT:- The goods imported have been described as “multi-media speaker system”. It is stated to contain features of playing USB/FB/FM either by connecting the same or through blue tooth. The Department has argued that in view of the additional features in the imported goods, the same are more properly classified as music system under 8527 but we note that essential function of the imported goods is nothing but multi media speakers.
Similar goods have been classified as sought by the respondent under 8518 in the case of LOGIC INDIA TRADING CO VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2016 (3) TMI 5 - CESTAT BANGALORE].
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1955
Denial of registration to the students who acquired qualification of ANM/GNM from the Singhania University - he Singhania University is established by law - HELD THAT:- Once the controversy has already been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.L. ASAWA VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [1982 (3) TMI 282 - SUPREME COURT] then there is no question to hold that any error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in directing the appellant RNC so as to deny the registration on the pretext that recognition is necessary from the appellant Rajasthan Nusing Council.
If any University is established by law and imparting the course in the form of diploma and degree or qualification, that cannot be questioned by the appellant RNC for the purpose of registration.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1954
Non appearance on miscellaneous petition - Service of valid notice - HELD THAT:- Miscellaneous petition has come up for hearing on 11.05.2018, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite valid service of notice of hearing. The AD card is placed on record.
We find that the MP is time barred and also a copy of the order of the Tribunal has also not been annexed. Registry has also issued a defect notice, but the assessee did not make any effort to remove the defect. In the light of these facts and also the fact that the assessee did not appear despite service of valid notice, we find no option but to dismiss the miscellaneous petition of the assessee. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1953
Claims of the appellants against their broker rejected by the DC - NSE liability to compensate the appellants - whether all claims of the investors / clients against their defaulter broker can be paid out of the Investor Protection Fund ('IPF' for short) of the stock exchange - HELD THAT:- The relationship between the appellants and Kassa was in the nature of a client - broker one rather than an investor - broker one. Very fact that the clients did not do a single trade for a long period after opening their trading accounts and they had entered into agreements which specified the percentage of fixed returns to the appellants make it very clear that the appellants were supporting the illegal para banking activity of their broker. The submissions made by some of the appellants that they were uninformed investors cannot be accepted since the claims of all the appellants (except one) are in millions of rupees (in the range of ₹ 2 million to ₹ 8 million). It is also a fact that SEBI and exchanges have widely publicized the specific manner in which clients accounts should be maintained by the brokers and how such accounts should be settled in every quarter etc. as evidenced through the Bye-laws and circulars.
From the Bye-laws and the relevant circulars, we note that the process of refunding investors when a broker is declared as defaulter is as follows :
a) On inviting claims against the defaulter broker by the exchange investors would submit their claims.
b) These claims are scrutinized by the IGRP of the exchange who validates the admissible claims against the said broker.
c) The exchange would refund the claims using the funds of the defaulter broker available with the exchange in the form of deposits, margin money etc.
d) In case of shortage of funds in the defaulter broker's account with the exchange, the unpaid claims / remaining claims would be placed before the DC of the exchange which will verify such claims as to whether they can be paid out of the IPF.
e) Claims found to be payable from the IPF as per the Bye-laws will be entertained and others would be rejected.
f) Finally, whatever claims are pending i.e. after pay out from the broker's own fund with the exchange and as admissible under IPF, all the remaining claims have to be settled by the broker itself.
Given these procedures and the reasons cited in para no. 9 above, we find no fault with the DC's decision that the appellants' claims cannot be entertained from the IPF. Appellants are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum to settle their claims against Kassa in case Kassa is not honoring their claims.
We do not find any merit in the argument of the appellants that NSE is liable to compensate the appellants for having failed in their duty as a regulator of brokers.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1952
Negligence and incorrect assessments without proper appreciation of evidence - appellant is a retired Commissioner of Income Tax, who was charge-sheeted by the Under Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes on 13.09.2002 - HELD THAT:- The appellant has since retired in the year 2014. We notice that, on facts, there is a massive unexplained delay of 9 years between the date of the Enquiry Report and the date of the show cause notice. It is obvious that the Disciplinary Authority, if it is going to upset the Enquiry Report, must do so within a reasonable period of time, which reasonable period has long since elapsed.
Appeal allowed.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1951
Validity of the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 -Assessee has suppressed its profits by taking accommodation entries of bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- The intimation from DGIT (Inv), Mumbai was about the bogus investment/share applications. AO has not at all applied his mind while recording the reasons. The facts on record clearly establishes that the AO has not applied his mind so as to come to a conclusion that he has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment for the year under consideration.
The reasons recorded are vague and are not based on any tangible material as well as on the facts acceptable in the eyes of law. The reasons recorded also suggest that the AO has mechanically issued notice u/s 148 even not bothering regarding the nature of information received from the DGIT (Inv), New Delhi. Such vagueness in the reasons recorded make reopening bad in law and deserved to be quashed. Therefore, we quash the reopening of the assessment.
Since we have quashed the notice issued for reopening assessment u/s 148 - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
