Try our new portal www.taxtmi.com for a better experience!

Home

Case Laws

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2018 2018 (6) This

Law
Court
Citation	- -
Landmark
Order by

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 221 to 240 of 1861 Records

2018 (6) TMI 1643

Rectification u/s 254 - capital gain computation - cost of acquisition in case of succession of the firm to the company - HELD THAT:- Section 49(1)(iii)(e) was introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.4.1999. The said section, in our view, is only clarificatory in nature and has specifically provided the cost of acquisition in case of succession of firm to the company. However, the said cost of acquisition was already in existence under section 49(1)(iii)(a). Therefore, in our view no fresh charge has been created on account of succession of a firm to the company. It has only clarified the existing basis of calculating the cost of acquisition in case of succession of the firm to the company.

We find that the above findings of the Coordinate Bench have been rendered in the context of the provisions of section 49(1)(iii)(a) and not section 49(1)(iii)(e) as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 where clause (xiii) of section 47 was inserted w.r.e.f 1.4.1999. Further, the contentions of the assessee have also been understood in context of transfer as per clause (xiii) of section 47 as evident from the finding that “the assessee, in our view, has wrongly got confused with the principles laid down under section 47 which talks about the transaction which are not regarded as transfer, with that of principles for determining of cost of acquisition under section 49” instead of corresponding clause relating to cost of acquisition relating to transfer as contemplated under section 47(xiii) as introduced in section 49(1)(iii)(e)

However, if we look at the first two grounds of appeal, these grounds of appeal were raised by the assessee specifically in the context of section 49(1)(iii)(e) as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 which were brought on the statute subsequent to passing of the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act and which were invoked by the ld CIT(A). In these grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the findings of the ld CIT(A) in holding that amendment to section 49(1)(iii)(e) inserting clause (xiii) of section 47 was clarificatory in nature.

The said findings of the ld CIT(A), as we have noted above, were rendered in the context of amendment being retrospective and hence clarificatory in nature. However, the way the same has been apparently understood by the Coordinate Bench was that the provisions governing cost of acquisition in case of succession, inheritance are already in existence under section 49(1)(iii)(a), the subsequent amendment in section 49(1)(iii)(e), wherein corresponding provisions governing cost of acquisition in case of a transfer as defined in section 47(xiii) were provided by the Finance Act, 2012, was clarificatory in nature.

We further note that contentions of the assessee regarding non-levy of interest u/s 234B due to retrospective amendment, though noted by the Coordinate Bench, has apparently missed its attention and the ground of appeal has been dismissed holding it as consequential in nature in view of deletion of ground relating to cost of acquisition.
2018 (6) TMI 1642

Validity of 'provisional agreement' reached between the parties - it was pleaded that the ‘consent terms’ between the Appellants and the Respondents will await the outcome of the insolvency and proposed ‘consent terms’ and thereafter, they will reach the final agreement - HELD THAT:- While we take into record the final consent terms is dated 15th June, 2018 and treat the same as final, though the specific date of decree of final agreement has not been shown above but on the basis of affidavit, we treat it as an agreement reached between the parties on 15th June, 2018.

Appeal disposed off.
2018 (6) TMI 1641

Extension of the stay originally granted - stay beyond the aggregate period of 365 days - section 254(2A) validity - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT [2015 (5) TMI 655 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that the third proviso to section 254(2A) is constitutionally invalid. The net effect of this judgment is that if the appeal could not be disposed of by the Tribunal for no fault of the assessee, then the power vests with the Tribunal to extend the stay beyond the aggregate period of 365 days.

On merits, it is indisputably found that the terms of stay originally granted have been duly complied with. The appeal could not be finally heard for one reason or the other, but, for no fault of the assessee. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are inclined to grant extension of stay for a further period of six months from today or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. The appeal is stated to be fixed for hearing on 19.7.2018.

Stay application is allowed.
2018 (6) TMI 1640

Money Laundering - Grant of Bail - Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act - HELD THAT:- After effecting amendment to Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act the words “under this Act” are added to Sub Section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA Act. However, the original Section 45(1)(ii) has not been revived or resurrected by the said Amending Act. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Additional Solicitor General of India are not disputing about the said fact situation and in fact have conceded to the same. It is further to be noted here that, even Notification dated 29.3.2018 thereby amending Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act which came into effect from 19.4.2018, is silent about its retrospective applicability.

The original Subsection 45(1)(ii) has therefore neither revived nor resurrected by the Amending Act and therefore, as of today there is no rigor of said two further conditions under original Section 45(1)(ii) of PMLA Act for releasing the accused on bail under the said Act - when there is no bar of twin conditions contained in original Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA Act, the present application has to be considered and decided under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with or without conditions.

The applicant is on bail in the two scheduled offences. The maximum punishment for an offence under PMLA Act is seven years. The applicant in the present crime has been arrested on 1.2.2016 and till today he has already under gone more than one third of the total imprisonment as an under trial prisoner - the applicant is entitled to be released on bail subject to conditions imposed.
2018 (6) TMI 1639

TP Adjustment - comparable selection - functional dissimilarity - HELD THAT:- Infosys BPO Limited company was functionally dissimilar to the assessee company as this company was engaged in providing high-end integrated services. It has been submitted and demonstrated from the annual report of BPO Infosys Ltd that this company is rendering a wide array of BPO services in the nature of business platforms, customer service outsourcing, finance and accounting, human resources outsourcing, legal process outsourcing, sales and fulfilment sourcing and procurement outsourcing etc. On the other hand, it is seen that the assessee provides only back office support services in the nature of IT enabled services and it is essentially a captive service provider. We direct the AO/TPO to exclude BPO Infosys Ltd. from the final set of comparables.

BNR Udyog Ltd. is carrying out medical transcription, medical billing and coding whereas the assessee is a captive service provider. ITAT Delhi Bench had the occasion to consider the comparability of another company providing medical transcription service i.e. Accentia Technologies Ltd. with the assessee company in assessee's own case BT e-Serv (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2017 (11) TMI 64 - ITAT DELHI] by holding that the functions of medical transcription are not at all comparable to the functional profile of the assessee company.

Eclerx Services Limited was functionally different from the assessee company as this company was engaged in Knowledge Process Outsourcing (KPO) services and was engaged in providing financial services like trade processing, reference data services like web content management and merchandising execution, web analytics, social media etc

Excel Infoways Limited ompany was also functionally dissimilar as it was engaged in IT enabled BPO services and development of infrastructure facility. It has also been submitted that this company fails the employee cost filter as well as the diminishing revenue filter.

TCS e- Serv Ltd. functionally dissimilar to the assessee company as this company provides KPO services to banking and financial services industry in the form of core business processing services, analytics and insights as well as support services for both data and voice processes. Also service wise segmental details were not available in the case of this company

R Systems Ltd - we direct the assessee to produce the relevant information before the TPO and also direct the TPO to verify the same and if found appropriate, include R Systems Ltd in the final list of comparables.

Denial of working capital adjustment - HELD THAT:- In the proceedings before us for this year, it has been demonstrated by the Ld. AR that the working of the working capital adjustment claim was submitted before the TPO/AO. We also note that the claim of the assessee was rejected without assigning any reason. In such a circumstance, it is our considered opinion that the TPO/AO should consider the claim of the assessee with regard to working capital adjustment afresh after duly examining the computation as submitted by the assessee and after giving due opportunity to the assessee.

Transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest on receivables - HELD THAT:- AR had been placing extensive reliance on the order of the co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in assessee's own case BT e-Serv (India) (P.) Ltd.[2017 (11) TMI 64 - ITAT DELHI] while pleading for similar relief with respect to the comparables, the issue of interest on receivables was not argued at all and a plea was made to restore the issue to the TPO/AO with appropriate directions conveniently side-stepping the fact that this issue had been decided against the assessee in AY 10-11 in the very same order on which the Ld. AR had placed extensive reliance. However, we also note that the Ld. CIT DR also had not pointed out that this issue was covered against the assessee - thus in the interest of justice, the issue of adjustment in respect of interest on receivables should be re-examined by the TPO/AO after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case and also after giving due consideration to the order of the ITAT in assessee's own case
2018 (6) TMI 1638

Validity of assessment orders - TNVAT Act - CST Act - petitioner did not submit their objections to the revision notices - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the revision notices issued by the respondent dated 05.9.2017 is sequel to the inspection conducted by the Enforcement Officer. The observations contained in the impugned orders are verbatim reproduction of the statement, which was prepared by the Enforcement Officer and refused to be signed by the authorized representative of the petitioner. If the Enforcement Officer directs the Assessing Officer to initiate action based on the findings, which they recorded during inspection, then in all fairness, the Assessing Officer should have forwarded the replies given by the petitioner vide emails dated 05.5.2017 and 15.5.2017 along with attachments.

The respondent should have been put on notice by the Enforcement Officer about the stand taken by the petitioner earlier in the sworn statement, which was prepared by the Enforcement Officer, failing which, the action should be termed to be unilateral.

The writ petitions are disposed of by directing the petitioner to treat the impugned assessment orders as show cause notices and submit their objections along with all enclosures and annexures, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed by way of remand.
2018 (6) TMI 1637

TPA - comparable selection - exclusion of TCS- E-serve Ltd - HELD THAT:- From the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the A.Y.2011-12 [2016 (9) TMI 1425 - ITAT MUMBAI] , wherein facts and circumstances were similar and Tribunal have directed for exclusion of TCS- E-serve Ltd., from the final set of comparables on account of functional dissimilarity, ownership of significant intangibles and impact of 'TATA' brand on its profitability. . Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, we direct the AO to exclude TCS- E-serve Ltd., from the final set of comparables.
2018 (6) TMI 1636

Detention of consignment - electrical equipments - consignments duly accounted for by the appellant-assessee as also the purchasers - no further evidence to prove the attempt of evasion as alleged in the notice issued under Section 47 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - HELD THAT:- The purchase orders were raised by the purchasing dealers on 30.9.2008 and 29.9.2008. The letter expressing shortage of space is on 30.9.2008. If there was such shortage of space, it is not clear as to why a purchase order was raised on the very same day or on the previous day. We do not think that the action of the consignor was above board and bona fide. The letters are an after thought and would not establish that the transport was bona fide.

The facts noticed would indicate that there was one year's delay in the transport, that is from the date of invoice and the date of detention. However, there was no proceedings taken on the ground of such delay and the allegation was only of the invoice being not genuine. We do not think that this would in any manner help the assessee herein; nor is there any declaration that the delay would not entail penalty for tax evasion.

The question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
2018 (6) TMI 1635

Whether the appellant is entitled for refund of duty, interest and penalty paid during the course of audit and with request that the payment was made voluntarily and for not issuing the SCN, the matter should be closed, an undertaking was also given that no refund claim shall be made in future? - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the appellant on the objection from the audit voluntarily paid the duty, interest and penalty and also requested that the matter may be closed with this payment and not to issue any SCN. The undertaking was also filed that they shall not claim any refund.

The issue is squarely covered by Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, once the appellant opted for voluntary payment of service tax and interest and intimate to the department, the matter shall stand closed and the department has no liberty to issue any SCN, that means the issue stand closed. Neither the assessee can dispute the same nor the department has opportunity to issue any SCN. Therefore, at a later period coming with the refund is absolutely contrary to the provision of Section 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
2018 (6) TMI 1634

Dismissal of appeal for non appearance - HELD THAT:- At the time of hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any application seeking adjournment. Several adjournments were made in this case either at the request of the assessee or at the request of the Ld. DR. Last such adjournment was made on 19.04.2018 at the application of the assessee fixing the case for hearing on 26.06.2018. On 26.06.2018, when the matter was taken up for hearing no one represented on behalf of assessee. So, it gives an impression that assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal.

As in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. [1979 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., [1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D] dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-appearance. - Decided against assessee.
2018 (6) TMI 1633

Interest on refund u/s 54(1) (aa) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 - Indivisible Works Contract or not - erection and installation of air-conditioning plants - whether the activity undertaken by it falls under Entry No.5 of the said Notification dated 18.10.1993 issued under Section 55A of the erstwhile Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969? - applicable rate of tax - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the proceedings before the Tribunal were against the order passed by the first appellate authority levying/ charging tax at the rate of 15% against the claim of the Dealer at 5%.

In the meantime and during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, in another proceeding, including in the case of the very Dealer, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Dealer shall be entitled to interest under Section 54(1)(aa) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, on refund arising from the appellate order. Consequently, by impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeals by holding that the Dealer shall be liable to pay tax at the rate of 5%. Therefore, as such, the impugned orders passed by the learned Tribunal wherein the appeals against the assessment order/ first appellate order are allowed.

The Dealer shall be entitled to the refund of differential amount and as the said amount was retained/ recovered by the State, the Dealer shall be entitled to interest on the refund.

Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
2018 (6) TMI 1632

Simultaneous orders of assessment and penalty - transaction entered into by HLL with UCIL - HLL would claim that it merely chartered UCIL's trawlers on lease and paid a lump sum amount per month, which was inclusive of the lease rental, and in consequence, UCIL delivered the month's catch to it - export turnover - section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- There is no embargo in the statutory scheme as to passing of orders of assessment and penalty simultaneously, it would essentially depend upon the individual facts of the case to decide the correctness of such procedure. Presently, when the issue of penalty was specifically remanded to be decided along with main assessment, no demonstrable prejudice was caused to HLL by passing of orders simultaneously.

Levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- In Hindus- tan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court observed that an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi criminal proceeding and penalty would not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct, contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. It was further observed that penalty should not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so and it would be a matter of discretion to be exercised judicially, upon consideration of all relevant circumstances.

However, the mere fact that there was disagreement between the Members of the earlier Bench of the STAT is not enough to make the subject issue so contentious as to extend the benefit of the above decisions to HLL.-Significantly, the levy of penalty on HLL under the proceedings dated December 28, 1998 was not for the first time. The earlier levy of penalty was set aside by the ADC and the matter was remanded back to the CTO to be decided along with the quantum addition - There was no necessity for the CTO to again call upon HLL to explain as to why it should not be visited with penalty, as the order of remand covered both the quantum addition as well as the penalty. In consequence, passing of the assessment order and the penalty order on the same day, viz., December 28, 1998, does not amount to a vital irregularity.

Even otherwise, the facts bear out that but for the inspection of UCIL's premises and detection of the agreement dated October 12, 1984 and the supporting material, the non-disclosure of purchase of shrimps by HLL from UCIL would not have come to light and HLL would have gotten away with suppression of this transaction. Such a deliberate and wilful act of non-disclosure therefore attracted penalty and as there were no mitigating circumstances, the levy of highest penalty also cannot be found fault with.

This court finds no merit in the claims of HLL - petition allowed.
2018 (6) TMI 1631

Additional or fresh ground before Tribunal - permissibility of a claim for deduction made for the first time before the Appellate Tribunal without such claim having been made earlier - entitled to depreciation of the goodwill that had been acquired pursuant to the acquisition of a company or a unit or the like - HELD THAT:- The assessee refers to a previous judgment NATIONAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS CIT [1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] for the proposition that if, as a result of any judicial decision given while the appeal is pending, it is found that a non-taxable item is taxed or a permissible deduction is denied, it would be open for such ground to be raised in course of the appeal and the matter to be adjudicated upon.

Supreme Court found that in view of the wide authority conferred by Section 254 to the Appellate Tribunal, a point in such regard could be taken for the first time before the Appellate Tribunal if such point arose as a result of a judicial decision that affected the rights of the assessee during the pendency of the appeal.

There does not appear to be any substantial question of law warranting reconsideration of the Appellate Tribunal’s opinion.
2018 (6) TMI 1630

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Addition on account of other income and Addition on account of interest expenses - HELD THAT:- So far as the first two additions we have noted that the assessee has, on it’s own, accepted these inadvertent mistakes.

The explanation of the assessee about these mistakes, in our considered view, deserves to be accepted. The PMS receipt break up is known only upon receipt of the statement, and, more often than not, PMS receipts are dividend receipts which are tax exempt in nature. Similarly, interest on delayed TDS is an interest payment nevertheless and it cannot be treated as a fake, malafide or patently incorrect claim. In a case in which returned income is ₹ 35.37 Crores, errors of this magnitude cannot be said to deliberate errors with ulterior motives. The amounts are indeed small and explanations of the assessee are quite reasonable.

Exchange fluctuation - Assessing Officer himself has accepted the fact that even income was booked on capital account by mistake as a result of wrong posting of capital field vouchers in the revenue account. Certainly, this kind of a casual approach is not desirable but then right now we are only concerned whether the explanation of the assessee is reasonable, and whether meets the test of preponderance of probabilities, or not. Viewed in this perspective, in our considered view, the explanation offered by the assessee is reasonable and worth being accepted. We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to delete the penalty in respect of the addition for exchange fluctuation as well.

Claim of depreciation - assessee had purchased the building and land for ₹ 5,93,47,914/- and the stamp duty valuation of land was ₹ 1,10,99,970/-. While there is no building valuation on record, based on the above facts, the building being treated at the value of ₹ 5 crores is not an outright absurd claim as, even after reducing the stamp duty valuation of land, the building value at ₹ 4.83 Crores does seem reasonable from that perspective – even though that is not legally correct, as held by the co-ordinate bench. The fact that building was demolished is a subsequent event, and adopting the stamp duty valuation figures in broad terms may result in disallowance of depreciation but the claim has some basis. Keeping in view of these discussions, in our considered view, the penalty in respect of disallowance of depreciation must also stand deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
2018 (6) TMI 1629

Presence of Counsel on Recording of statements - Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 - illegal detention of goods or not - HELD THAT:- We are not inclined to hold that recording of statement of the petitioners under Section 108 of the Customs Act by DRI officials without the presence of their counsel would in any manner violate any of their fundamental rights - On the contrary, if the kind of allegations which the petitioners have made against the DRI officials are accepted on their mere ipse dixit and all the statements of this nature are generally ordered to be recorded in the presence of their advocate, the purpose of enquiry under the Customs Act and the other enactments of similar nature may be defeated. If the DRI authorities in the present case have identified many such dubious transactions, they have legitimate right to question such importers and persons associated with them in isolation and not necessarily in the company of their counsel. Such act on the part of DRI cannot be held to be violative of Article 20(3), 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

The prayer of the petitioners that their statement should be recorded in the presence of their counsel cannot be accepted. It however goes without saying that the respondents while recording their statement are always expected to follow the due process of law.

Petition dismissed.
2018 (6) TMI 1628

TP adjustment - comparable selection - Provision of Software Development Services - HELD THAT:- PERSISTENT SYSTEMS AND SOLUTIONS LTD. (PERSISTENT) being a product development company and into diversified services having no segmental information is not a valid comparable vis-à-vis the taxpayer which is a routine software development service provider, so we order to exclude the same from the final set of comparables.

SANKHYA INFOTECH LTD. (SANKHYA) - being into diversified services providing customized services to end users and has developed customized products for imparting training and having its own research and development centre cannot be a valid comparable visà-vis the taxpayer which is a routine software development service provider.

E-ZEST SOLUTIONS (E-ZEST) - Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Symantec Software and Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017 (1) TMI 1388 - ITAT CHENNAI] examined comparability of the taxpayer with routine software service provider and ordered to exclude the same on the ground that it is providing high end technical services and as such, is a KPO and not a software development company. So, in view of the matter, we order to exclude E-Zest from final set of comparables.

Working capital adjustment denied - HELD THAT:- The taxpayer has filed detailed working capital computation and has also filed submissions on working capital adjustment as per OECD Guidelines. It is also an uncontroverted fact that the working capital adjustment has been allowed to the taxpayer by the TPO in AY 2012-13 and business model of the taxpayer has not undergone any change.

In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the issue is required to be sent back to AO/TPO to decide allowability of working capital adjustment in view of the settled principle of law applied by the Revenue itself in taxpayer’s own case for AY 2012-13 after providing an opportunity of being heard to the taxpayer.

Computing correct margins of the comparables - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that when the taxpayer has argued its case on the basis of facts and figures brought on record by way of evidence as well as submissions, AO/TPO is required to compute the correct margin. So, this issue is remanded back to the AO/TPO to compute the correct margin to be consistent with directions issued by the ld. DRP in taxpayer’s own case for AY 2012-13 as there is no change in the business model of the taxpayer.

INFOSYS LTD. (INFOSYS) - keeping in view the functional dissimilarity, scale of operation, high brand value impacting profit, having own research and development centre with capital expenditure of ₹ 5 to ₹ 7 crores and revenue expenditure of ₹ 570 crores, creating huge intangibles for the company and the fact that Infosys is a full-fledged risk bearing company, hence cannot be a valid comparable vis-à-vis the taxpayer which is a routine captive software service provider working on minimal risk having no brand value nor having any research and development centre to produce its own intangibles. So, ld. CIT (A) has rightly excluded Infosys from the final set of comparables.

WIPRO TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (WIPRO) has generated its entire revenue pursuant to the master service agreement having its huge scale of operation as compared to taxpayer and the fact that the taxpayer is a routine captive service provider, the ld. CIT (A) has rightly excluded Wipro as a comparable from final set of comparables for benchmarking the international transactions.

Companies with diversified business activities with no segmental financials and is also into research and development activities, product engineering and end to end product life scale management solutions, etc. and as such, cannot be a valid comparable vis-à-vis the taxpayer which is a routine captive software development service provider.
2018 (6) TMI 1627

Disallowance u/s 14A - claim restricted to the exempt income earned by the assessee - HELD THAT:- Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Joint Investments (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2015 (3) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has taken the view that disallowance u/s. 14A cannot exceed the exempt income. Similar view was expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Holcim India Pvt. Ltd., [2014 (9) TMI 434 - DELHI HIGH COURT] .

These decisions were considered by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Future Corporate Resources Ltd v. ACIT [2017 (9) TMI 805 - ITAT MUMBAI] relating to AY 2011-12 and it was held by the Tribunal Mumbai Bench that disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot exceed the exempt income. Following the aforesaid decisions, we hold that disallowance u/s. 14A in the present case should be restricted to the exempt income earned by the assessee. - Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
2018 (6) TMI 1626

Import of goods for the purpose of sports facilities as authorised by the competent authority viz. Sports Authority of India - benefit of N/N. 146/94-Cus., dated 13th July, 1994 - It is the case of the Department that the respondent has not fulfilled the condition of the notification to the extent that they have imported the material for Synthetic tracks for making the artificial surfaces - HELD THAT:- Ministry of Youth Affairs, Government of India, vide its letter dated 8th November, 2004 has stated that the import is in pursuance to the provision of support for installation of Synthetic tracks and the Ministry has recommended the same to be imported without payment of Customs duty under the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002. In addition, Indian Hockey Federation has also issued the certificate that the Biju Patnaik Stadium are used for National and International matches.

Board’s Circular No. 70/2002-Cus., dated 25-10-2002 has clarified that the material for Synthetic tracks are artificial and permissible under Notification No. 146/94-Cus.

The substantial condition for the aforesaid notification is met with - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
2018 (6) TMI 1625

Excess payment of duty - unable to either adjust its input credit available or apply for a refund - vacuum created on account of the suspension of the two forms and the related absence of any clarification - HELD HAT:- Counsel for the Revenue submits that he would take appropriate instructions and make submissions in the Court on the next date of hearing. A counter affidavit on all aspects, especially dealing with these issues shall be filed within four weeks.

List on 24.07.2018.
2018 (6) TMI 1624

Addition u/s 40(a)(ai) - Books of Account were rejected and the profit was estimated @ 8% of turnover - ITAT deleted addition - whether the addition made as per the statutory provision could be interfered with in a manner done? - HELD THAT:- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on analyzing the reasons that weighed with the Tribunal for rejecting the justification given by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), we find that the Tribunal has not committed any error. Once the Books of Account were rejected and the profit was estimated @ 8% of turnover, then, the same Books of Account cannot be relied upon for the purpose of making addition under the provision of Section 40 of the Act. In doing so, the Tribunal has not committed any error. We do not find any substantial question of law warranting reconsideration. - Decided against revenue.