|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 1182 Records
-
2025 (2) TMI 942
Valuation - Invocation of revisional jurisdiction of this court u/s. 8F of the Karnataka Entertainment Tax Act, 1958 - inclusion of service tax component in the ‘amount received or receivable’ while levying entertainment tax, in terms of Sec. 4G of the Act
Whether the service tax collected by the Petitioner from the subscribers under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 against the DTH broadcasting services shall from part of consideration for the levy of Entertainment Tax under Section 4G of the 1958 Act? - HELD THAT:- The entertainment tax is levied and collected ‘on the amounts received or receivable’ by a Multi System Operator or Direct To Home service provider [DTH]. These amounts are nothing but the consideration which the customers would pay towards providing television signals under the DTH scheme. The transaction would obviously include both entertainment and service. Since both are discernible independent of each other, they are taxable separately; the entertainment is taxed under the provisions of 1958 Act whereas, the service is taxed under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. The text, content & intent of section 4G leaves no manner of doubt that for the purpose of levy of entertainment tax, the ‘amount received or receivable’ cannot include service tax component. Had the legislature intended inclusion, the text of this provision would have been a bit different. Therefore, the first question of law is answered in the negative and in favour of the Assessee.
The above view gains support from the decision of Apex Court in M/s Anand Swarup Mahesh Kumar vs. Commissioner Of Sales Tax [1980 (9) TMI 238 - SUPREME COURT] wherein, Assessee therein had argued that the market fee payable under the UP Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 being a sum which could be collected from the purchaser under the provisions of the said statute by the commission agent for being remitted to the market committee, could not be considered as forming part of the consideration payable by the purchaser of the goods to the commission agent and therefore, it could not be included in the ‘turnover of purchases’ for the purpose of levy of tax under section 3-D of the UP Sales Tax Act, 1948.
Whether in the absence of definition of ‘invoice’ in the 1958 Act, the bills/statement of accounts containing the itemized details/segregation of the basic value of DTH broadcasting services, service tax, license fee etc. will be considered as ‘invoice’? - HELD THAT:- Abundant evidentiary material is produced even in the paper book of the petition. The Assessee had placed before the authorities the Statement of Account showing itemized billing and separate collection of service tax amount which aspect has been discussed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Assessee’s earlier STRP No. 436/2017 disposed off on 10.12.2021 [2022 (1) TMI 443 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. True it is that the word ‘invoice’ is not defined in the 1958 Act nor in the Mysore General Clauses Act, 1899. However, Black’s law dictionary, 5th edition, gives the meaning of this word. “A written account or itemized statement of merchandise shipped or sent to a purchaser, consignee, factor, etc., with the quantity, value or prices and charges annexed. Document showing details of a sale or purchase transaction…The new International Webster’s comprehensive dictionary, 2004 edition, defines ‘invoice’ to mean a list sent to a purchaser, etc., containing the items and charges of merchandise.” Both the authorities at their level and the Tribunal in its domain would have treated this aspect of the matter in a satisfactory way. This having not happened, it is required to upset the finding in this regard so that even this aspect of the matter would be considered afresh.
Conclusion - i) The 'amount received or receivable' for entertainment tax does not include the service tax component. ii) The absence of a statutory provision authorizing the passing on of tax to consumers affects the consideration for tax levy.
The impugned order of the Tribunal is set at naught; matter is remitted to the domain of the Tribunal for consideration afresh in the light of the observations hereinabove made and in accordance with law - Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (2) TMI 941
Challenge to judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed against accused Nos. 1 and 2 - Acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused - Income Tax Officers - appreciation of acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused.
Whether the findings of the Trial Court in respect of the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused is justified? - HELD THAT:- The evidence of P.W.8 who is the shadow witness to the incident would indicate that there was no demand of illegal gratification by accused No. 3. However, P.W.1 was handing over the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- to accused No. 3, at that time, the accused No. 3 was apprehended by the respondent-CBI. On conjoint reading of the evidence of P.W.1, 2 and 8, it can be inferred that the prosecution has failed to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by accused Nos. 1 and 2. The Trial Court ought to have appreciated the evidence in such a manner before arriving at a conclusion that the accused are found guilty of offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.
Whether the Trial Court is justified in appreciating the electronic evidence? - HELD THAT:- Though P.W.8 supported the case of the prosecution in respect of the said mahazar, the evidence of PWs.1 and 8 would clearly indicate that both these witnesses have not seen the removal of the memory card from the said M.O.6. Further, it would indicate that they have not heard the conversations said to have been transferred to the Compact Discs (CD). In the absence of collecting the certificate as required under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act to prove the electronic evidence in respect of the memory card, it is unsafe to rely on the evidence of the said electronic device. Though the prosecution has tried to impress the Court that the conversations that had taken place between the parties were transferred to CDs, which are identified as M.O.s 1, 7 and 9, as the primary evidence itself proved to be unacceptable, the remaining portions ought not to have been considered by the Trial Court. However, the Trial Court grossly committed an error in considering the said evidence. Therefore, the findings of the Trial Court in respect of the electronic evidence, is opposed to the settled principle of law.
Whether the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction is justified? - HELD THAT:- The lack of credible evidence of demand and acceptance, coupled with inadmissible electronic evidence, undermined the Trial Court's conviction. The conviction was unjustified and should be set aside.
Conclusion - i) The demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as required under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. ii) The electronic evidence was inadmissible due to the lack of a Section 65-B certificate, and the Trial Court erred in considering it. iii) The conviction based on insufficient evidence and misappreciation of the law was unjustified.
The judgment of conviction and order on sentence by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dharwad is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 940
Addition u/s 69A - Addition based on single concept of cash deposit in bank - CIT(A) has discussed non-compliance on the part of the assessee before the Ld. AO as the notices sent were not complied with but he has not adjudicated the appeal on merit - HELD THAT:-Section 250(6) of the Act casts a duty on the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order in appeal which should state the points for determination and the decision as well as the reason for arriving at such decision. In the present case before us, the Ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned the reasons after examining the records while disposing of the appeal. CIT(A) has neither adjudicated upon various grounds of appeal nor has passed a reasoned order for arriving at the decision, as is required u/s 250(6) of the Act.
We further note that in Ajji Basha [2019 (12) TMI 320 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] it has been held that a speaking order on merits with reasons and findings is to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on basis of ground raised in assessee's appeal; he cannot dispose the assessee's appeal merely by holding that Assessing Officer's order is a self-speaking order which requires no interference.
It has also been held in the case of Premkumar Arjundas Luthra [2016 (5) TMI 290 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] that the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.
There is an option available to the assessee to file an application before the Ld. CIT(A) who may dispense with the requirement of payment of advance tax on the basis of facts. Apparently, no such application was filed by the assessee and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
Liability to pay the advance tax - Since the Ld. CIT(A) has not mentioned as to how much advance tax was payable by the assessee which has not been paid, and the assessee had the option of filing an application before the Ld. CIT(A), which however, was not filed and consequently the discretion available to the Ld. CIT(A) to exempt the assessee from the applicability of the rigours of section 249(4) could not be exercised by him and the appeal has also not been decided on merit, therefore, in the interest of justice, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside to be done afresh. The assessee may file an application for exemption from the requirement of payment of advance tax, which shall be decided by the CIT(A) in accordance with law and considering the totality of facts. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the assessee in his appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (2) TMI 939
Addition u/s 68 - assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposited in his bank account - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the bank statement of the assessee, it is seen that there are both deposits as well as corresponding withdrawals made by the assessee from the same bank account, during the impugned year under consideration.
While entire deposits/credits have been added as unexplained income of the assessee, corresponding credit for withdrawals has not been given to the assessee. Thus, on perusal of the bank statement of the assessee for the impugned year under consideration, in our considered view, the additions made by AO are not liable to be sustained, looking into the assessee’s particular set of facts. Decided in favour of assessee.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non-appearance in response to notice issued asking the assessee to cause appearance - HELD THAT:-Only a very short period of one day was granted by the AO to cause appearance before him, in the interest, penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is liable to be deleted. It is a fit case where penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for causing non-appearance is liable to be deleted, looking into the assessee’s facts as highlighted above. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (2) TMI 938
Addition u/s 69A - Unexplained cash deposits in bank account - Assessee argued source of cash deposit is out of cash withdrawn on earlier dates from bank accounts and savings - HELD THAT:- No hesitation in holding that the assessee has shown the sources of earlier withdrawal. By noting the fact that an amount of Rs. 84,944/- is cash out of earlier income or saving. We finally conclude that an amount in respect of which addition is made under section 69A is successfully explained and proved too. We therefore hold that such addition is incorrectly made by lower authorities by treating the same as unexplained within the meaning of Section 69A of the Act. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 937
Validity of reassessment order as barred by limitation - arguments advanced by the assessee that the since the extended time limit of 12 months is not available in the case of Non-Resident as per sec.153(4), AO ought to have complete the assessment as per the provisions of sec.153(2) which is one year from the end of the financial year in which notice u/sec.148 was served - HELD THAT:-Since in the case of the assessee who is a Non-Resident during the impugned A.Ys. 2013-2014 and 2014- 2015, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment on 25.05.2022 beyond the period of one year from the end of the financial year in which notice issued u/sec.148 dated 29.03.2021, therefore, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustainable in the eye of law.
As relying on SHRI MIR IBRAHIM ALI [2024 (12) TMI 193 - ITAT HYDERABAD]we quash the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and allow the additional grounds raised by the assessee.
Penalty u/sec.271(1)(c) on account of concealment of particulars of income is to be deleted.
-
2025 (2) TMI 936
Reopening of assessment - assessee has challenged the notice u/s 148 on the ground of jurisdiction - notice under section 148 of the IT Act which has been issued by ACIT Circle-1, Jaipur is without jurisdiction
HELD THAT:- By virtue of section 124 of the IT Act, 1961 it comes under the territorial jurisdiction of ITO Ward 70(3), Delhi, therefore, the jurisdiction of the case of the assessee lies with ITO Ward 70(3), Delhi. In support of his contention, he has relied on the order of Jeeri Keerthana Reddy [2024 (1) TMI 1380 - ITAT MUMBAI]
A/R has also submitted that in the instant case the Income-tax Department did not exercise powers as conferred under section 120 or section 127 of the IT Act, 1961, therefore, the notice and the subsequent proceedings needs to be quashed.
A/R has demonstrated with adequate evidence to prove that the jurisdiction over the case of the assessee lies with ITO Ward 70(3) Delhi whereas notice under section 148 has been issued by ACIT Circle-1, Jaipur which is not correct in terms of the Income Tax Act. We find force in the contention of the ld. A/R. Therefore, notice under section 148 and consequent proceedings undertaken on the strength of such illegal notice are quashed. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 935
Addition u/s 68 - unsecured loan received by the assessee - assessee could not prove the repayment of the unsecured loans along with sources of repayment and reasons there for - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THATR:- The entire allegation of the ld. AO seems to be based on finding that these entities were doing some circular trading and they had defrauded the bank by adopting modus operandi of rotation of funds from one entity to another and misusing the LC facility from these banks. Despite making such allegation in the respective assessment orders of these entities, he has applied the profit rate on the sales declared by these entities to assess their income.
Nowhere in their cases any deemed income has been assessed or any finding have been given that they are bogus entities not doing business. Once AO has accepted source of these loans in the case of these parties, then how can he made the addition u/s.68 in the hands of the assessee.
Nowhere in the various statements as referred by the ld. AO, there is any whisper about the assessee or any question was asked by the searched parties or the authorised officers that any such person or entity have given any kind of accommodation entry to the assessee or the loan given by these parties were bogus.
The entire allegation of the AO based on the statement recorded and finding of the search parties is that these groups were doing either bogus sales or purchases or circular trading to get LC from the bank. There might be movement of funds from one company to other and overdrawing the money from the banks through Letter of Credit without any credentials at the time of Bill Discounting or for any other purpose, but nowhere there is any finding of investigation wing or any material found or statement during the search, that some unaccounted money has been given by the assessee company to accommodate any loan entry or there is any cash trail.
Neither there is involvement of any kind of entry operator nor were these companies found to providing accommodation entry of loan by taking some temporary cash. Without such information or material, there cannot be any presumption that these companies had provided bogus entry of loan or the transaction is not genuine. Thus, the finding of the CIT(A) cannot be tinkered with. Accordingly, the additions made u/s.68 is deleted and the order of the ld. CIT (A) is confirmed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 934
Violation of principles of natural justice - non-service of SCN - net tax payable as computed by the respondent appears to be based on a failure to reconcile the returns that were submitted - HELD THAT:- It is the case of the respondents that the notice which preceded the final order under Section 73 was placed in the ‘Notices and Orders’ tab since by that time appropriate corrective measures had been taken on the portal thus ensuring that all notices were placed under the principal tab and being viewable.
The writ petitioner is permitted to move an appropriate application for rectification bringing to the attention of the GST officer - petition disposed off.
-
2025 (2) TMI 933
Cancellation of registration of the writ petitioner - HELD THAT:- Quite apart from the evident laches in approaching this Court, the indubitable fact noted is that no provision of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 renders the writ petitioner ineligible to apply for registration afresh. The provisions which have been made by the respondent themselves in Circular No. 95/14/2019-GST.
The challenge to the impugned order fails and the writ petition shall consequently stand dismissed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 932
Rejection of application for voluntary cancellation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration - HELD THAT:- The factum of filing of returns is one which is conceded by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed in these proceedings itself. In view of the aforesaid, if there had been any discrepancy in the GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, it was always open for the respondents to duly process the returns as submitted and frame an order of assessment. The same could have in any case not constituted sufficient ground for rejecting the application for cancellation.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 931
Challenge to assessment order - said proceedings did not contain a DIN number - HELD THAT:- The question of the effect of non-inclusion of DIN number on proceedings, under the G.S.T. Act, came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors [2022 (8) TMI 216 - SUPREME COURT]. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after noticing the provisions of the Act and the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (herein referred to as “C.B.I.C.”), had held that an order, which does not contain a DIN number would be non-est and invalid.
A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa [2024 (7) TMI 1512 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], on the basis of the circular, dated 23.12.2019, bearing No.128/47/2019-GST, issued by the C.B.I.C., had held that non-mention of a DIN number would mitigate against the validity of such proceedings.
Conclusion - The non-mention of a DIN number in the order, which was uploaded in the portal, requires the impugned order to be set aside.
The impugned proceedings set aside - petition allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 930
Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner's request for a personal hearing was not even considered - the respondent would submit that the petitioner's would be granted an opportunity of personal hearing and the petitioner may submit all the documents, during the course of personal hearing.
HELD THAT:- The impugned order dated 24.08.2024 is set aside. It is open to the petitioner to submit documents/additional objections/reply, if any, to the respondents and the respondents would proceed with the matter after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of.
-
2025 (2) TMI 929
Challenge to assessment order - impugned orders have been passed without taking into account the documents filed in support of the replies submitted - violation of principles of natural justice - the respondents would submit that they would re-examine the issue and would also submit that the petitioner may once again produce the entire documents which they intend to rely upon - HELD THAT:- The impugned orders are set-aside. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to treat the impugned orders as Show Cause Notice and submit its reply along with documentary evidence within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the impugned orders stands restored.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (2) TMI 928
Imposition of tax and penalty u/s 130 of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the survey was conducted at the business premises of the petitioner on 29.05.2018, in which the alleged discrepancy in stock was found. On the said basis, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under section 130 of the GST Act.
The issue in hand is no more res integra. This Court in various cases has held that at the time of survey, if some discrepancy in stock is found against the registered dealer, then the proceedings under sections 73/74 of the GST Act ought to have been initiated, instead of section 130 of the GST Act. Reference may be had to S/s Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar [2024 (8) TMI 71 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], M/s Maa Mahamaya Alloys Private Limited [2023 (3) TMI 1358 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and M/s Shree Om Steels [2024 (7) TMI 1205 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT].
The impugned order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2, Kanpur as well as the impugned order dated 10.09.2018 read with order dated 05.08.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2 under section 130 of the GST Act cannot be sustained in the eyes of law - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 927
Challenge to search and seizure order - alleged discrepancies found during a survey - initiation of proceedings under sections 73/74 of the GST Act or u/s 130 of the GST Act - HELD THAT:- It is admitted that the survey was conducted at the factory premises of the petitioner on 13/14.03.2018, in which certain discrepancy with regard to raw material, semi/finished product, etc. was found, to which confiscation/proceedings under section 130 read with section 122 of the GST Act were initiated against the petitioner.
The issue in hand is no more res integra. This Court in various cases has held that at the time of survey, if some discrepancy in stock is found against the registered dealer, then the proceedings under sections 73/74 of the GST Act ought to have been initiated, instead of section 130 of the GST Act. Reference may be had to S/s Dinesh Kumar Pradeep Kumar [2024 (8) TMI 71 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], S/s J.H.V. Steels Limited [2024 (10) TMI 1450 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and M/s PP Polyplast Private Limited [2024 (8) TMI 144 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT].
Conclusion - At the time of survey, if some discrepancy in stock is found against the registered dealer, then the proceedings under sections 73/74 of the GST Act ought to have been initiated, instead of section 130 of the GST Act
The impugned order dated 16.04.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3 as well as the order dated 23.11.2019 passed by the respondent no. 4 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law - Petition allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 926
Demand for service tax penalty and imposition of various penalties under the CGST Act - penalties related to a period when the CGST Act was not in force, and services provided were exempted under the Finance Act of 1994 - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the quantum of tax involved in the present case and M/S Kanak Automobiles Private Limited are concerned, in Kanak Automobiles [2024 (4) TMI 1223 - PATNA HIGH COURT] it is Rs. 86 Lakh whereas in the present case it is Rs. 6,33,879/-, therefore, it is intended to dispose of in the light of Kanak Automobile case read with Hon’ble Supreme Court [2025 (2) TMI 847 - SC ORDER].
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 925
Challenge to assessment order - service of notice - HELD THAT:- In view of the order passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., batch dated 06.01.2025 [2025 (1) TMI 1021 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], wherein it has been held that the assessee is entitled to service of notice in the modes described under clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Section 169(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and since the said order applies to the present case, the impugned order dated 03.11.2023 for the assessment year 2018-19 is set aside.
This Writ Petition is allowed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 924
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice u/s 274 - non specification of clear charge/Default - HC decided [2023 (8) TMI 1373 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Revenue does not dispute that none of the penalty notices issued to the respondent/assessee for the aforementioned AYs advert to the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) which is triggered against him.
It is not clear whether the AO intended to levy a penalty on the respondent/assessee for concealment of particulars of his income, or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
HELD THAT:- There is gross delay of 371 days in filing this Special Leave Petition.
Delay in refiling is condoned.
Following the orders passed by this Court in [2024 (9) TMI 1698 - SC ORDER], [2024 (9) TMI 1698 - SC ORDER] and [2024 (7) TMI 975 - SC ORDER] in the case of the very same respondent-assessee, we dismiss the application seeking condonation of delay.
Consequently, the Special Leave Petition also stands dismissed.
-
2025 (2) TMI 923
Stay of demand - deposit of 20% of the outstanding amount was made - HELD THAT:- In the matter of M/s. Aarti [2018 (4) TMI 1284 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] application for stay of demand has not been considered in the manner it was required to be considered and dealt with. Deposit of 20% of the disputed demand has been made condition precedent for hearing the application for stay which is not contemplated either under the Act of 1961 or the CBDT guidelines dated 29-2-2016 modified by the office memorandum dated 31-7-2017.
It is only when the competent authority is of the opinion that the assessee has made out a case for grant of interim relief, stay can be granted subject to deposit of 20% of the disputed demand. Likewise, there is a further clause in the circular for reduction of 20% deposit if the petitioner makes out a case, it has also not been considered. In straightway, direction of deposit of 20% of the disputed demand has been made which is not the correct way of deciding the application for stay of the disputed demand.
Since similar question is involved in this matter, the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the competent authority to consider it afresh in light of the guidelines as stated above and pass a reasoned order within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
............
|
9911796707
