|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 1905 Records
-
2019 (8) TMI 1686 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
CENVAT Credit - manufacture of both dutiable and exempted goods - non-maintenance of separate records - rule 6(3)(i) of the Credit Rules - Revenue entertained a view that in as much as during the relevant period from 18/03/2012 to 07/05/2012, the Notification No. 6/2006-CE as appearing in Rule 6(6)(vii) was not replaced with the new Notification No. 12/2012 dated 17/03/2012, the said Rule would not be applicable and the Appellant would be required to pay six per cent of the value of exempted goods cleared to the Mega Power Plant - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the Notification No. 6/2006 continued to appear in Sub-Rule 6(6)(vii), even though the same was not in force during the relevant period and the said mistake was rectified on 08/05/2012, when Notification No. 25/2012, was issued. The subsequent exemption Notification No. 12/2012 was introduced in the said rule 6(6)(vii) thereafter.
As is seen from the clarification issued by the Board, the Ministry of Finance vide their letter F. No. 267/49/2013-CX.8 dated 30th June, 2015 caused the unintended mistake, to be rectified later. The Supreme Court in the case of W.P.I.L. LTD V/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, U.P. [2005 (2) TMI 137 - SUPREME COURT] dealt with an identical situation and observed that when it was the consistent policy of the Government to grant exemption to the parts used in the manufacture of power pumps, any gap between the withdrawal of such exemption and subsequent introduction of such exemption has to be treated as clarifactory in nature and has to be construed retrospectively.
In the present case, it is not even the case of re-introduction of exemption notification. Exemption continued in as much as with the rescinding of Notification No. 6/2005, the subsequent Notification 12/2012 was immediately introduced. It is only in the provisions of Rule 6(6)(vii) of the Credit Rules, which are to the effect that there would be no requirement of reversal of any amount in case of the goods cleared under the exemption to Mega Power Project, Notification No. 6/2006 was not replaced with Notification No. 12/2012. This inadvertent mistake was clarified by the Board vide the clarification reproduced hereinabove. Admittedly, the goods continued to be cleared under exemption to the Mega Power Projects - it is the Notification No. 12/2012, that has to be read in the provisions Rule 6(6)(vii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules with retrospective effect. In such a scenario there would be no requirement of reversal of Cenvat Credit, in terms of the provisions Rule 6(3).
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1685 - CESTAT KOLKATA
CENVAT Credit - capital goods - P.S.C. Railway Sleepers - Rails - Electrical items - HELD THAT:- The assertion of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant to be correct as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the issue in the case of M/S JAYASWAL NECO LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR [2015 (4) TMI 569 - SUPREME COURT] as regards the availment of CENVAT Credit on rails and railway materials is concerned. The ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case, squarely applies to the case on hand as well since the CENVAT Credit alleged to have been wrongly availed are on the very same items.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1684 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Levy of Excise Duty - duty on damaged finished goods at the normal sale price/transaction value or not - extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- Leviability of excise duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act arises at the event of manufacture of finished goods. Admittedly, the goods destroyed in fire in the present case were finished goods, duly entered in the RG-I Register maintained by the appellant - In the facts of the present case, definitely, the liability to excise duty has arisen when the goods had reached the stage of the finished goods and entered in the RG-I Register. The subsequent event of damage in fire does not ipso facto extinguish the tax liability. Moreover, Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules provides the assessee to seek remission from the payment of duty, so as to reduce the tax burden wherever the goods have been destroyed and rendered unfit and unmarketable. Accordingly, the appellant is liable to pay duty on the finished goods.
Valuation of goods - HELD THAT:- The amount of insurance claim received plus the transaction value of the damaged finished goods will form the gross amount dutiable on cum duty basis. Also, the liability of the appellant does not extinguish on the fact that they have not claimed or received amount of the excise duty on the damaged goods from the insurance company. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for re-calculation of the duty payable on cum duty basis on the value indicated.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- As the case of short payment of duty has arisen on the appellant mis-interpreting the provisions of Act and Rules, the extended period is rightly invoked by the Revenue.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- The issue being interpretational in nature and the transactions are duly recorded in the books of accounts, thus, the penalty is not exigible. Accordingly, the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11 AC is set aside.
Appeal allowed in part - part matter on remand.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1683 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
CENVAT Credit - mining and manufacture of bulk lead and zinc concentrates - penalty under Rule 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2007 - extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- The issue is wholly interpretational in nature. The appellant has maintained proper records of their transactions and the credit taken is based on the proper input service invoices. Further, the appellant, on being so pointed out by the Department, reversed the substantial amount of cenvat credit along with interest before issue of show cause notice. They have further reversed the substantial amount during the pendency of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) amounting to ₹ 6,27,513/-, which was contested before the Commissioner (Appeals).
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The conditions precedent for invoking the extended period of limitation are not available to Revenue - demand for the period till July, 2014 is set aside.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- There is no contumacious conduct nor preconditions for imposition of penalty.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1682 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Clandestine manufacture and clearance - allegation of suppressed sales by the Income tax department - suppression of sales - presence of corroborative evidence or not - HELD THAT:- The provisions of the Central Excise law and the Income tax law are radically different and taxability under the income tax law does not ipso facto attract taxability under the central excise law in as much as an income may or may not be the result of manufacture, which has to ascertained by undertaking an independent enquiry to this effect.
However, the follow-up enquiry conducted by the Central Excise Department to corelate such unnamed loose sheets in the instant case is entirely half-hearted and incomplete inasmuch as no efforts were made to adduce any evidence what-so-ever to support the charge of clandestine manufacture (in the form of purchase of un-accounted raw materials, manufacture of finished goods, consumption of electricity, production capacity etc.) and neither is there any independent evidence to support the charge of clandestine clearance against Appellant No. 1. Even the statement of the buyers, named in the loose sheets have not been recorded - no basis has been disclosed in the Notice or the impugned order passed thereunder as to how the alleged suppressed sale of ₹ 30.97 Crores has been worked out from the loose sheets when the audited turnover of the Appellant Mo. 1 during the relevant period was in excess of the year-wise amount reflected in the loose sheets. Therefore, the entire proceedings are completely motivated and confined to the findings of the income tax survey.
The decision of the Tribunal in M/S. RAVI FOODS PVT. LTD. & OTHERS VERSUS CCE, HYDERABAD [2010 (12) TMI 290 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] fully supports the view that in the absence of any corroborative evidence of clandestine manufacture of final product, it cannot be said that there was clandestine removal of goods for the purposes of Central Excise Law merely based on information received from the income tax department regarding admission by the assessee of any undisclosed income/suppressed sales.
The assessment orders passed by the Income Tax Department consequent to the survey, that the alleged suppressed sale was not included in the income of the Appellant No. 1 but in framing the assessment of M/s Swagath Plastic Pvt. Ltd. in accordance with the disclosure statement dated 20 October 2014 made by the Uma Group. Further, the loose sheets identified as Page 58 to 60/UPL-4 on the basis of which the charges have been framed in the present proceedings are duly referred in the Income Tax Assessment Orders of M/s Swagath Plastic Pvt. Ltd. for the year 2011-12 to 2014-15. Therefore, the whole edifice of the present central excise demand on Appellant No. 1 is flawed and cannot survive.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1681 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Benefit of exemption in terms of Clause -5(b) of Notification No. 20/2007 – CE dated April 25, 2007 - Sanction of self-credit / refund - Section 35E of CEA - HELD THAT:- The claim of the respondent was allowed only after complete scrutiny of all the concerned authorities of the appellant, including physical verification in the course of which all relevant materials and documents were duly scrutinized and we find that the Commissioner was right in his interpretation of Clause – 5(b) of the Notification and to take the depreciated value of plant and machinery as on 31-03-2006 in determining the percentage of increase in the fixed capital investment in plant and machinery in absence of any mention of Original Book Value in the said Notification.
In view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Gauhati in the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise – Vs – Jellalpore Tea Estate, [2011 (3) TMI 11 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT], the instant proceedings against the respondent by taking recourse to Section – 11A of the Central Excise Act for recovery of alleged erroneous refund tantamount to circumventing the prescribed law, is clearly impermissible.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1680 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption - clubbing of clearances - clubbing with an independent separate entity which exist for a period of only three months and thereafter it has closed its operations - GTA Services - CENVAT Credit - reverse charge mechanism.
SSI Exemption - Clubbing of the clearances of M/s Suparash Electro Product Co., a proprietorship firm with the appellant for determining the exemption limit under N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 1 March 2008 - HELD THAT:- M/s Suparash Electro Product Co. has worked from the same manufacturing premises for a brief period between April 2016 to June 2016 and effected clearances of excisable goods valued at ₹ 29,55,128/- and availed SSI exemption Notification 8/2003-CE. The appellant have taken over the manufacturing unit from M/s Suparash Electro Product Co. on lease basis and started manufacturing from October 2016 - both the firms are independent and they have no dealings in terms of the finance or otherwise with each other.
It is a settled principal that the appellant being independent manufacturer although they had used the manufacturing unit of M/s Suparash Electro Product Co., these clearances to be independently taken into consideration for deciding the SSI exemption benefit - thus, the clearances of M/s Suparash Electro Product Co. cannot be added to the clearances of the appellant for determining the turnover for exemption under the Notification No. 8/2003-CE.
CENVAT Credit - GTA Services - reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT:- Since, the appellant was not having any evidence to show whether the service provider has availed the Cenvat credit on any of the inputs, the service tax has been confirmed by the lower authorities including the learned Commissioner (Appeals). N/N. 26/2012 dated 20 June 2012 was amended by Notification No. 8/2014 w.e.f. 11 July 2014 whereunder the previous notification was amended and as a result the condition of Cenvat credit availment was made applicable only with respect to the service provider. A prudent analysis of the above-mentioned notifications and their amendments lead to the conclusion that the condition of non-availment of the Cenvat credit is required to be satisfied by the service providers only and service recipient will not be required to establish the satisfaction of this condition - the appellant have rightly discharged their service tax liability on the charges paid by them on availing the goods transport agency service and therefore the impugned order-in-appeal is without any merit and need to be set aside.
The demand on both the counts is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1679 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Clandestine removal - MS ingot - MS Roll - MS Plate - corroborative evidences or not - HELD THAT:- The allegation in the show cause notice is based on inference and guess work which have no legs to stand. Neither any evidence nor any incriminating documents have been found in the course of investigation from these appellants. Further, there is categorical denial by these appellants of having any business transaction with the said Bhiwadi during the period under dispute.
The allegation of Revenue are unsubstantiated and the show cause notice is presumptive, and held is not maintainable - Demand and penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1678 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - HELD THAT:- As at the time of hearing it has been brought to our notice that as per the CBDT Circulars No.03/2018 dated 11.07.2018 and Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 9th August, 2019, the tax limit for filing of appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal has been fixed at ₹ 50.00 lakhs. Since the tax effect in all these appeals is less than ₹ 50.00 lakh, we are dismissing the same on account of low tax effect with the liberty to the Revenue to seek recall of the order, if any of these appeals falls within the exceptions mentioned in the Circulars cited above.
In the result, all these appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as withdrawn and the cross objections are dismissed as infructuous.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1677 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - direction to re-adjudicate the case within three months from the date of receipt of the order - fraudulent export of readymade garments under Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme - allegation is that the “G” Card Holder of the Appellant Company, had played the entire mis-chief by forging/impersonating the signature of Shri S.Das, the partner of the Appellant and dealt with the export consignment on his own accord for the clearance of export cargo at Haldia Port - HELD THAT:- The “G” card holder of the appellant, Shri Samar Goswami, has undertaken the job of clearance of export consignment from M/s Sungrowth Exports Private Limited without the approval of the director of the appellant company. After having come to know about the mischief done by Shri Goswami, the appellant filed a police complaint on 15.10.2003, and intimated to the Customs on 17.03.2003. Thereafter, the service of Shri Goswami was also terminated by the Appellant. The department has also obtained the signature of the partner of the Appellant company, Shri S. Das, and sent for the forensic examination, so as to acertain as to whether the signature appearing on the export documents was by him or the same has been forged by the “G” Card holder, Shri Samar Goswami. The forensic report is only an opinion for the similarities, like straight nature of commencement of the initial oblique/of ‘S’, acute angularity in the middle, compressed nature of the bottom curve and ticked manner of execution of the terminal part of ‘S’ etc. (Page-143 of the Paper Book refers) This is an opinion only that was formed on the manner of making a sample signature, which may be very closely/similarly imitated by some other person (more so, if he has some idea about Forensic Science relating to identification of handwriting). This opinion cannot change/belie the other circumstantial/corroborative facts/evidences on record.
It cannot be concluded that the signature that appeared on the export document was of Shri S.Das, the partner of the appellant company. Further, there are a lot of force in the submission made by the Learned Advocate that the appellant was not in the knowledge of any mischief which has been committed by the importer.
It is found that Tribunal in the case of Lohia Travels and Cargo Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Prev.) [2015 (8) TMI 141 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], has held that When there is no evidence to establish that the appellant had prior knowledge of the goods imported and also when there is no evidence to establish any wrongful intent on the part of the appellant then there is no reason to impose penalty. After finding that the appellant has become unknowingly party to fraudulent import, the imposition of penalty is unjustified.
In absence of any investigation regarding indulgence of the CHA in clearance of the export consignment, it is found that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same is being set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1676 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Valuation of imported goods - enhancement of declared value - bar under the provisions of Section 17 of Customs Act from filing an appeal against the enhancement - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals) is right in holding that the there is no bar in filing appeal against the assessment order even in case were the enhanced value has been accepted by the importer. Further it is also found that in this case the appellant has clearly stated that they are not accepting the enhanced value as per NIDB price but in order to avoid demurrage and detention charge and also blocking of the capital, with a specific request to issue the assessment order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act. This averment indicates that the respondent had the clear intention to file appeal against the order of enhancement of the price which was agreed by him. Therefore, it cannot be held that having agreed to the proposed enhancement, the respondent is barred from filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
Regarding the claim of Revenue that the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken additional evidence from the respondent contrary to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Customs Appeal Rules, 1982. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken any new evidence but only entertained some new case laws in support of their case, which cannot be considered as production of additional evidence on part of the respondent. The right to appeal is a statutory right under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 and cannot be curtailed by relying on the case of M/S. ADVANCED SCAN SUPPORT TECHNOLOGIES VERSUS C.C., JODHPUR [2015 (11) TMI 31 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] in the case wherein there was no contest by the appellant. It is settled law that the that the value cannot be enhanced on the basis of NIDB price alone which has rightly been relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
The Department has not produced any evidence of contemporaneous import but for relying on the NIDB price. NIDB price itself cannot be sufficient to reject the transaction value. But the Department was required to give the evidence of higher contemporaneous value based on the cogent evidence by supply of comparable invoice in terms of the Customs Valuation Rules which has obviously been not followed by the Assessing officer.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1675 - SUPREME COURT
Liability of General Manager - Vicarious Liability or not - Negligence on the part of Hotel or sheer negligence of the injured who walked out to the terrace for smoking - prosecution of offences Under Sections 336 and 338 read with Section 32 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 - HELD THAT:- The liability of the Directors/the controlling authorities of company, in a corporate criminal liability is elaborately considered by this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal [2015 (9) TMI 1339 - SUPREME COURT]. In the aforesaid case, while considering the circumstances when Director/person in charge of the affairs of the company can also be prosecuted, when the company is an Accused person, this Court has held, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts through its officers, Directors, Managing Director, Chairman, etc. If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, it would normally be the intent and action of that individual who would act on behalf of the company. At the same time it is observed that it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the Statute specifically provides for. It is further held by this Court, an individual who has perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of the company can be made an Accused, along with the company, if there is sufficient evidence of his active role coupled with criminal intent.
Having perused the directions issued permitting the Accused to appear through an advocate, such direction is within the power of the High Court in exercise of inherent powers conferred Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure Having regard to nature of directions issued by the High Court, as referred above, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the same, in these appeals.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1674 - ITAT DELHI
Taxability of advance for transfer of a capital asset where advance is forfeited - Addition treating the forfeiture of application money on fully convertible debentures as capital asset by invoking the provision of section 56(2)(ix) - As per assessee said convertible debenture does not fall in definition of ‘capital asset’ in the hands of assessee and Ld. CIT (A) has erred both in law and in facts of the case in making the above addition without providing any opportunity to the appellant to represent his case before himself - HELD THAT:- Amended section 56(2)(ix) by Finance Act 2014 has to be understood in light of section 51 of the Act, which provided that where any capital asset was on any previous occasion, subject matter of negotiations for its transfer and any advance or other money has been received and retained by the assessee in respect of such negotiations, then same was to be deducted from the cost for which the asset was acquired or the written down value or the fair market value, while computing the cost of acquisition. Now, from A.Y. 2015-16, if such sum received as an advance is included in the total income then same is deducted from the cost of acquisition. Section 51 refers to capital asset belonging to the assessee which was a subject matter of negotiation for transfer and assessee receiving any sum as advance from such negotiation. It was not applicable to the transferee.
Here in this case the debentures were duly allotted to the subscribing companies and due to non payment of further call money under the agreement had led to the termination of the debentures and, therefore, said sum paid by the debenture holder cannot be held to be on account of transfer of capital asset in the hands of the assessee company. Debenture is debt instrument or is a kind of long term loan to borrow money at a fixed rate of interest. It is not a capital asset although the money raised by way of debenture becomes part of the issuer company’s capital structure, but it does not become share capital. Thus, in our opinion, the forfeiture of the amount is not on account of failure of negotiation of transfer of capital asset of the assessee and thus, is not hit by section 56(2)(ix). The addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) is directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1673 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH
Seeking time for filing rejoinder by submitting that the reply was served to the petitioner only on 26.08.2019 - HELD THAT:- Such a casual attitude of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. If the learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to seek some time for filing rejoinder, he could have requested the Tribunal at the threshold itself. After consuming valuable time of the Tribunal, at the end, one cannot seek time for completion of the pleadings.
In the interest of justice, grant two weeks' time granted to the petitioner for filing rejoinder with copy advance to the counsel opposite, subject to deposit of ₹ 20,000/- as costs, payable to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. The matter is adjourned to 01.10.2019.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1672 - CESTAT ALLAHABED
Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts or not - activity of making preparation and display of advertisement or the activity of display of pre-pared advertisement - intent to evade or not - HELD THAT:- The entire case of the Revenue is admittedly based upon the scrutiny of the appellant's balance sheet and income tax returns. When all figures stand reflected in the balance sheet, which is a public document, the extended period of limitation would not be available to the Revenue - In the present case the Revenue has not produced any evidence to show any mala fide on the part of the appellant, thus justifying invocation of longer period.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1671 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment of trust - depreciation allowable as application of income on charitable objects - Double deduction - HELD THAT:- Substantial questions of law, which have been framed in these appeals, have been answered against the Revenue as relying on RAJASTHAN AND GUJARATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION POONA [2017 (12) TMI 1067 - SUPREME COURT]. - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1670 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Seeking permission to withdraw this petition - HELD THAT:- Permission, as prayed for, is granted. This petition stands disposed of as withdrawn, without entering into the merits of the matter. This Court has not adjudicated this petition and both the sides are open to raise all factual and legal contentions raised in this petition.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1669 - ITAT DELHI
Validity of Assessment u/s 153A - Reckoning date of search - AO treating the Assessment Year 2012-13 as the year of search on the premise - whether in the wake of 2nd proviso to Section 153C the date of initiation of search u/s.132 should be from the date of receiving of books of account or documents etc. by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such person? - HELD THAT:- As relyig on S RRJ SECURITIES LTD. case[2015 (11) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we hold that the impugned Assessment Year 2012- 13 cannot be treated as year of search, and therefore, assessment could not have been framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1) and accordingly, assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is declared null and void and consequently the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1668 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income from house property - estimation of notional rent in respect of unsold plots - Disallowance by estimating the Annual Letting Value (ALV) of unsold flats forming part of closing stock in trade and assessing the same as ‘Income from house property.’ - HELD THAT:- The issue of estimation of notional rent in respect of unsold plots has been decided in the case of assessee’s sister concern Makewaves Sea Resort Pvt. Ltd [2019 (3) TMI 1871 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein as relying on 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’.
We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and, hence, the order of the CIT(A) upholding the addition made by AO estimating the ALV in respect of unsold flats cannot be sustained. The decision relied upon by the learned DR in the case of CIT vs. Gundecha Builders [2019 (1) TMI 112 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] is distinguishable on facts as in that case the unsold portion of the property constructed by the builder was given on rent and rental income was treated as business income. Whereas, in the present case, the assessee has not let out any flats and all were lying unsold as stock in trade. Accordingly, we are inclined to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition on account of estimation of ALV in respect of unsold flats for A.Y. 2013-14. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (8) TMI 1667 - ITAT JAIPUR
Maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - HELD THAT:- We note that the tax effect in this appeal is not exceeding the monetary limit as revised by the CBDT vide Circular dated 08.08.2019 for the purpose of filing of appeal by the department before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal from ₹ 20,00,000/- to ₹ 50,00,000/-.
Accordingly, the appeal of the department is not maintainable being monetary limit is less than/not exceeding ₹ 50,00,000/-.The department is at liberty to file the Miscellaneous Application in case the tax effect in this appeal is found to be more then ₹ 50,00,000/- or the case falls in any of the exceptions of the circular.
............
|
