|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 1557 Records
-
2025 (1) TMI 1298
Validity of Settlement Commission order accepting the settlement amount offered by the assessee u/s 245D (4) - HELD THAT:- Settlement Commission has, arrived at a finding that the assessee was not directly dealing with land from which income has been earned which has been invested in the land and therefore, it would not be possible for the assessee to disclose the manner in which such undisclosed income was earned from the real estate transactions.
\In view of such finding of fact arrived at by the Settlement Commission and in absence of any further evidence produced by the petitioner before the Settlement Commission and more particularly when the statement made in the application for settlement to the effect that it is based on full and true disclosure, which is to be accepted unless there is evidence found contrary to the disclosure made, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Settlement Commission is just and proper and requires no interference while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Contention raised on behalf of petitioner with regard to documents found in the mobile phone of Mr. Kishor Koshiya pertaining to the assessee - As in view of the order passed by the Settlement Commission in case of Mr. Kishor Koshiya accepting the disclosure made by him as per the application for settlement, no further addition could have been made by the Settlement Commission in the hands of the assessee on such grounds as no further evidence was produced by the department during the joint verification of such documents found from the mobile phone of Shri Kishor Koshiya. Therefore, the Settlement Commission cannot be said to have committed any error while accepting the rejoinder of the assessee to the Rule 9 report.
Thus findings arrived at by the Settlement Commission, it is for Mr. Kishor Koshiya to explain the documents found his mobile phone and the assessee could not be subjected to any further disclosure on the basis of such assumption and presumption in absence of any evidence. It is true that this Court is not required to go into the merits of the matter on issues which are decided by the Settlement Commission while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1297
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Change of opinion - failure on the part of the assessee in furnishing material facts fully and truly for the assessment - assessee has not disclosed true and correct facts regarding the payment of VAT - HELD THAT:- As per notice issued by the CIT(A), Baroda, wherein no recording of reasons of the fact of failure on the part of the appellant in submitting material facts for the purpose of making assessment truly and fully at the time of original assessment is reflecting for initiation of such re-assessment proceeding.
Once, upon considering the documents, the claim of the assessee decided and accepted by not making any addition during the course of regular assessment issuing notice u/s 148 on the same issue by successor AO amongst to assumption of revisionary power which is not valid as per law.
When the AO attempts to reopen an assessment on the count the opinion formed earlier by him was an incorrect opinion, the reopening is not warranted.
Though the statutory power has been given in the hands of the ITO to reopen the final decision made against the Revenue in respect of the question that directly arose from the decisions in earlier proceeding, the same is required to be exercised sparingly upon due application of mind, otherwise it would result in placing an unrestricted and unguided power of review in the hands of the assessing authorities depending on their changing moods.
Thus, we find that in the absence of new material facts brought on record by the Revenue reopening of assessment beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the assessment year in the present facts and circumstances of the case is found to be not sustainable in the eye of law and order of quashing the same by the CIT(A) with the same observation is found to be just and proper so as to warrant interference. Revenue's appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and hence, dismissed.
Instant reopening and consequent addition sought to be made by the AO is nothing other than a mere change of opinion. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1296
NRI expenses - Expenses incurred on soliciting and mobilization of foreign currency deposits from Non-Resident Indians on the assessee's Indian business in the backdrop of Section 44C - HELD THAT:- Issue would have to be answered in favour of assessee in light of the order passed by us in ANZ Grindlays Bank [2024 (10) TMI 185 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held expenses were incurred for the purposes of inviting NRIs’ to open deposits in the Indian branches of the respondent assessee. The aforesaid initiative was predicated upon the circular of the RBI itself which is dated 16 October 1991. Since this was expenditure which was incurred solely for the purpose of the business of the respondent assessee in India, we find no merits in the challenge which stands mounted to the order of the Tribunal in this respect.
Expenditure on account of contribution to approved pension funds - contribution have breached the limits prescribed by Section 36 (1) (iv) and thus not liable to be allowed as deductions bearing in mind the provisions made in Section 40A (10) - HELD THAT:- The factual position which had fallen for notice of the Calcutta High Court in Exide Industries [2022 (9) TMI 1259 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and which lead it to draw a distinction between an initial or qualificatory contribution as distinguished from a contribution made in a particular year in discharge of employer obligations. It thus held that the limits that the Board could prescribe would only apply to an initial or an ordinary annual contribution. Any contribution made additionally in discharge of an overarching obligation would thus not be rendered as a disallowable expense. We find ourselves in agreement with the view expressed in Exide Industries.
Appeal decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1295
Levy interest u/s 234B - addition made in Book Profit under MAT being provision for doubtful debts - HELD THAT:- In this case, at least three Coordinate Benches have taken the view that where an assessee computed book profits as per the prevailing law, no interest u/s 234B could have been levied consequent to the inclusion of various items in computing book profits as per explanation to Section 115JB which were brought on the statute by the Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 1 April 2001.
While it is correct that no question of equity is involved in taxing matters, this principle does not obviate the necessity of the revenue being fair to the Court, and it points out that identical questions were decided against it. Mr Chhotaray could not or perhaps would not say whether the revenue has challenged the decisions in the case of Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd [2020 (6) TMI 587 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], Prime Securities Ltd. [2010 (12) TMI 475 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and JSW Energy Ltd. [2015 (5) TMI 823 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
These decisions were delivered in 2020, 2011 and 2015. Undoubtedly, the departments whom Mr Chhotaray represents would know whether the revenue challenged these matters before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Still, this appeal was instituted, and Mr Chhotaray insisted and argued the matter for a long time.
There is no difficulty hearing long arguments, but we expect greater fairness from the revenue in pointing out contrary and binding decisions directly on the issue. Based on a serious argument, an attempt could also be made to distinguish or seek a reference. But binding precedents should not be suppressed or attempted to be attacked so casually. Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1294
Estimation of income - bogus purchases - ITAT restricting the addition only to the extent of 7% - HELD THAT:- We decline to entertain this appeal. The issues raised turn on facts. Accordingly, they give rise to no substantial questions of law.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1293
Petitioner entitled to file a revised return beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and beyond the period of limitation under the above mentioned CBDT Circular - HELD THAT:- Petitioner has wrongly declared the gross income as also the taxable income in the return that was filed on 20.11.2012. The necessity for filing a revised return is on account of the subsequent crediting of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) by the Government who had employed the petitioner for excluding certain works contract as a result of which, the total deduction of tax by the Government for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 would have been Rs. 2,69,338/- instead of Rs. 85,568/-.
The attempt of the petitioner is to get a further refund by enhancing the taxable income of the petitioner by filing a revised return. The Income Tax Department has also not issued any notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to revise the assessment as the time for revising the assessment had already expired under Section 148 read with Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Thus, the question of condonation of delay in the light of the above CBDT Circular cannot be countenanced. The amount that was credited during the subsequent Assessment Year for the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) during the Assessment Year 2012-2013 at best, can be utilized by the petitioner for the succeeding year.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1292
Validity of reopening of assessment - jurisdiction assumed u/s 147 - addition towards LTCG on sale of shares - assessee has not filed the return of income - ‘Reason to believe’ - HELD THAT:- As pointed out on behalf of the assessee, the belief towards escapement of chargeable income has been entertained by the AO on the basis that the assessee has not filed the return of income for AY 2016-17 in question which is grossly contrary to the facts on record.
As demonstrated on behalf of the assessee that the assessee has duly filed return of income on 02.08.2016.
The most basic reason of holding belief itself is wholly incorrect. The basis that return of income has not been filed giving rise to the reason to belief towards escapement in the reasons recorded is itself contradicted by the AO himself in the assessment order where it categorically notes that the assessee had filed return of income for AY 2016-17 on 02.08.2016, declaring total income of INR 6,40,160/-. Thus, the reasons have been recorded grossly contrary to the facts on record.
‘Reason to believe’ is the starting point for re-opening a case. A freak foundation or reason that assessee did not file ROI is blatantly contrary to the facts. Belief stemmed from wholly unfounded reasons thus betrays the prerequisites of s. 147 of the Act. See ARVIND SAHDEO GUPTA [2023 (8) TMI 522 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] -
Assumption of jurisdiction allegedly without meeting the pre-requisites of s.151 of the Act - In consonance with the view expressed in Jagbir Singh [2025 (1) TMI 503 - ITAT DELHI] we see palpable merit in the plea of the assessee that the sanction granted under s. 151 of the Act is extraneous and an empty formality and do not accord with its salutary purpose. The requirement of law is to grant speaking approval u/s 151 of the Act which is not found to be fulfilled. The notice issued u/s 148 as a sequel to such sanction and resultant assessment is thus vitiated in law.
Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1291
Disallowance of bad debts claim - claim is premature is unjust, illegal, arbitrary, uncalled for and devoid of any merit and the appellant prays that the same be delete - whether the first appellate authority was justified in upholding the order of the Ld. AO with the further findings that the amount of loss written off is speculative in nature ?
HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT] has held that this position in law is well settled. After 1-4-1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee.
On the basis of judicial precedents mentioned hereinbefore, it is crystal clear that it is not required for the assessee / appellant to establish that the debt in question has became irrecoverable and bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee is quite sufficient. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1290
Addition of unpaid VAT liability u/s 43B - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the issue in present case qua the admissibility of unpaid VAT liability which was not paid on or before the due date for furnishing the return u/s 139 of the Act, if the same is not charged to P&L Account, the same cannot be disallowed being not claimed as deduction in the books of accounts.
We may herein note that on this issue the revenue through its Ld. Standing Counsel had accepted that the said amount was not claimed as an expenditure in P&L Account and the case is covered by the decision rendered in the case of M/s Ganapati Motors [2017 (4) TMI 1613 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] under such admission by the revenue, the contentions raised before us are found to be bereft of any substance. Decided against revenue.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1289
Addition of credit card payments being personal in nature u/s. 37(1) - Addition in hands of the Director as perquisite u/s. 2(24)(iv) - HELD THAT:- As undisputed fact that the company had agreed before the DDIT[Investigation] and disallowed the credit card payments being personal in nature u/s. 37(1) of the Act while filing the return of income of the company for the assessment years under consideration. Once, the company, did not claim the credit card payments being personal in nature as business expenditure while computing the business income, (due to disallowance made by the company), the aforesaid credit card payment relating to personal in nature cannot be taxed again in the hands of the assessee-director as income u/s. 2(24)(iv) of the Act.
AO himself has observed that during post search proceedings, the assessee suo motto submitted before the DDIT [Investigation] and disclosed the details of official expenditure and personal expenses of Directors related to the payment of credit card bills in the hands of the company. Since the company did not claim the personal expenditure while computing the business income, the assessee did not receive any additional benefit from the company.
AO is therefore totally unjustified in making the addition in the hands of the assessee being the personal expenditure of the director paid by the company which was disallowed in the hands of the company and the company paid taxes there on since it amounts to double taxation.
Judgements relied on by the CIT(A) are distinguishable on facts, as in those cases, the company did not disallow the expenses u/s. 37(1) of the Act in the hands of the company. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1288
Unexplained credits u/s 68 - treatment of sale consideration received on sale of diamonds as unexplained/Bogus LTCG -HELD THAT:- The existence of rough diamonds with the assessee together with the activity of processing of rough diamonds into cut and polished diamonds and sale of those cut and polished diamonds to third party customers is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the assessee herein.
In the present case, the diamonds were gifted to the assessee by his grandfather in the previous year relevant to assessment year 1994-95, while computing capital gains, the period of holding should be construed accordingly. Thus, such diamonds shall fall within the definition of “long term capital assets” and consequently, “long term capital gains” shall arise on their transfer.
CIT-A had relied on CBDT Circulars referred supra to treat the gains arising on sale of diamonds as short term capital gains. In this regard, we find that the Circulars had taken oscillating positions with regard to the period of holding of assets which works contradictory to the existing provisions of the Act itself. Hence the provisions of the Act would prevail.
Explanation 1(i)(b) of Section 2(42A) of the Act clearly lays down the law regarding the period of holding of assets. Hence there is no need to place reliance on Circulars for this purpose. Either way, the Circulars are binding only on the revenue authorities and the same is not binding on the Tribunal.
Period of holding of diamonds need to be reckoned from Assessment Year 1994-95 in terms of provisions of the Act and accordingly the resultant gain on sale of diamonds would have to construed only as Long Term Capital Gains in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
Gains on sale of cut and polished diamonds is to be construed as LTCG which had already been offered to tax by the assessee in the return of income and the same cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.Ground Raised by the assessee are allowed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1287
Validity of reassessment u/s 147 - Bogus LTCG on shares - HELD THAT:- Lower authorities brushed aside the submissions and all the documents filed during the course of the respective proceedings and merely relied upon the information received through CRIU module of insight portal and failed to conduct an independent inquiry against the claim of the assessee.
Absolutely, there is no direct or indirect evidence against the assessee which has been brought on record by the lower authorities to justify the addition by denying the claim of exemption under section 10(38) for the assessee.
The lower authorities had merely relied on third party information in this regard. It is pertinent to note that the transaction of purchase of shares made by the assessee in this regard has been accepted and no doubts or adverse inference has been drawn on the same.
These investments in shares were made in September 2012. The payments for the same had been made by account payee cheque out of the disclosed bank account by the assessee. These shares were duly dematerialized and were held by the assessee for more than three years.
These shares were admittedly sold through a recognized, through a registered share broker in the recognized stock exchange in the open market after duly suffering STT. Hence, there is absolutely no reason for the lower authorities to doubt the transaction carried out by the assessee. No case made out by the revenue for justifying the denial of exemption under section 10(38) - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1286
Disallowance of interest expenses - assessee provided interest-free advances while having interest-bearing loans was justified -whether there was “commercial expediency” in giving interest free advances or loans? - HELD THAT:- We notice that the advances have been given to these three companies during the course of carrying on business for business purposes, i.e., these payments have been given in connection with business ventures with the expectation of profits from the deal that will be entered by the respective parties. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has held that there was commercial expediency in giving these advances without charging interest, since the assessee is expected to get the share of profits from the deal. Further, these three advances continue from the earlier years and the AO did not make any disallowance of interest in the earlier years. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the proportionate interest disallowance.
For the other parties all these balances have been brought forward from earlier years and no disallowance of interest was made in those years. Secondly, the interest free funds available with the assessee are in far excess of these outstanding amounts. Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no requirement of disallowing any interest expenses vis-à-vis these outstanding balances.
Also account has been brought forward from earlier years and no disallowance of interest was made in those years.
Advances have been given in the earlier years and no disallowance of interest was made in those years. Since these advances have been given for business purposes, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance of proportionate interest in respect of both these advances.
Some advances have been given on commercial expediency during the course of carrying on of its real estate business. And sufficient interest free funds were also available with the assessee. Decided in favour of assessee.
Disallowance of the provision for expenses - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting. Under that system, it is mandatory for the assessee to make provision for all known expenses and losses, even if the payments in respect of those expenses have not been made. Unless such kind of provision for expenses are made in the books as at the year end, the financial statements cannot be considered to reflect true and fair view of the company.
The provision for expenses is usually made on some scientific basis at the year end, since the concerned bills would not have been received by the assessee at the time of finalization of accounts. Hence, the assessee would not be in a position to furnish relevant bills in respect of all items.
AR submitted that the provision for expenses are made every year in a routine manner in order to provide for all known expenses and losses in accordance with accounting principles. In the earlier years, the AO had accepted claim of the provision for expenses. Accordingly, we are of the view that the AO was not justified in disallowing the provision for expenses made by the assessee.
Appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1285
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - expenditure relatable to exempt income - HELD THAT:- Average value of investment under the substituted Rules is to be made @1% on average value of investment as held in the case of ACIT vs Vireet Investments P Ltd [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI] wherein, it has been held that for the purpose of computation of disallowance of average value of investment the AO has to take only the instrument which gives rise to exempt income and not the investment which does not give rise the investment. In terms of above, we set aside the order CIT(A) on this issue and remand the issue back to the file of the ld AO in the following terms:-
i. that the AO will find out the investment which gives rise to exempt income.
ii. then the AO will re-compute the disallowance by taking those investment which give rise to exempt income @1% on average value of investment.
iii. the AO will also verify the expenditure as described in proviso to Rule 8D(2)(ii) wherein, it is referred that the amount referred to in clause 1 and clause 2 would not exceed to total expenditure claimed by the assessee. The AO will find out the expenditure claimed by the assessee in terms of above and then will re-decide the issue.
Appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and order of the CIT(A) and that of AO is set aside.
Disallowing additional ground raised by the assessee during the course of first appeal - not considering that the income pertaining to the concessional fee received from AAICLAS Co. Ltd has already offered for taxation in AY 2018-19 - HELD THAT:- As both the sides and going through the facts of the case, notice that the income as claimed by the assessee which is already offered for taxation in AY, needs verification. Before us, assessee could not explain how this income of Rs. 102.88 is included in this income of Rs. 232.67 offered in AY 2018-19.
At one point of time, the ld counsel made submission that part income falls in AY 2018-19 and part falls in AY 2019-20. The entire controversy raised by assessee seems plausible and there should not be double taxation of an income. There is no impediment for Tribunal not to entertain new claim as held in the case of Goetze India [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT]wherein as laid down the principle that appellate authority can entertain a fresh claim. Hence, we admit this additional ground and set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remand this issue back to the file of AO with following directions:-
i. AO will first examine income offered for taxation for AY 2018-19 amounting to Rs. 232.67 crores, whether the same includes the income of Rs. 102.88 crores as claimed by the assessee and admitted in AY 2019-20 i.e., the present assessment year. In case this is admitted in AY 2018-19 or even part of this income is admitted in AY 2018-19, the same has to be excluded in the present AY.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1284
Notice u/s 143(2) issued by the non-jurisdictional officer - As argued jurisdiction could not have been transferred from ITO, Ward 11(3) to Circle 11(2) without order u/s 127 - as submitted Jurisdiction lies only with DCIT, however the statutory notice u/s 143(2) was issued by the ITO instead of the present Assessing Officer i.e. DCIT.
HELD THAT:- Revenue has not brought on record an order u/s 127 of the Act passed in order to transfer the case to DCIT, Circle 11 (2), New Delhi except making the submissions that assessee should file the objection within one month u/s 124(3) of the Act. Since the issue of notice u/s 143(2) is the basis of initiation of the assessment u/s 143(3) and the jurisdictional officer should have issued the notice and also completed the assessment.
The present Assessing Officer has completed the assessment without following the due process of law and we are inclined to hold that the jurisdictional notice u/s 143(2) was not issued by the DCIT before completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and that there is an unwarranted defect in this case which is not curable. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1283
Addition u/s. 69A - reliance on dumb documents found during the course of search - HELD THAT:- AO has made the additions on all the items found during search from the diary, but CIT(A) has restricted the additions to those entries only which were reflected in the books of accounts. In our considered opinion, the ld. Counsel’s submissions that wrong section is mentioned is not fatal over here, as additions have been made on account of unexplained items found during the course of search from the diary.
Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Vivek [2020 (11) TMI 953 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has duly held that loose sheets picked u/s 132, falls within definition of ‘document’ mentioned in section 132(4) and therefore, it has got evidentiary value. The decisions referred by assessee has no bearing on the present facts of the case. Decided against assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1282
LTCG - Denial of deduction u/s 54F - assessee failed to furnish the possession certificate, electricity bill etc. in order to establish the fact of possession being taken within the prescribed statutory time limit - HELD THAT:- Assessee made payment to the builders for the purchase of the new property even more than the capital gain earned. There was no delay on the part of the assessee who deposited the full amount of capital gain but the possession was not handed over by the builder which is an admitted delay on the part of the builder and because of such default of the builder in not completing the construction and handing over possession to the assessee within the time prescribed benefit of Section 54 to 54F cannot be attributed to the assessee particularly when the assessee has complied with all the statutory conditions in order to claim benefit u/s 54F.
Most of the builders generally failed to complete their purchase in stipulated period and hardly any builder could complete their project within the promised time. In the event, if the builders are not able to deliver the flats within the target period, and if, the assessee invested the requisite amounts in such projects within the prescribed time, benefit of Section 54/54F cannot be denied to thousands of such cases.
The provisions of section 54 are beneficial sections and therefore, it is to be interpreted liberally. If the assessee has completed his part of the job, in that case he is entitled to the deduction if the other part has not been completed because of the situation beyond the control of the assessee. Thus, For claiming exemption u/s 54, it is not necessary that the Assessee should obtain possession of the new asset or become the owner of such new asset by way of registration of document within the time limit as specified therein as long as the Assessee has acquired substantial domain over the new asset and paid substantial amount of its cost within such specified time limits.
Section 54 is a beneficial provision and it could never be the intention of the legislature to deny the benefit of such deduction in such bonafide deserving cases.
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjeev Lal [2014 (7) TMI 99 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been held that adverse inference against the assessee cannot be made in this regard. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1281
Assessment u/s 153A - entries found recorded in the diary seized from the residential premises of Third party - HELD THAT:- The entries found recorded in the diary seized from the residential premises of RKY is not capable of incriminating the assessee company per se. Additions made qua such entries thus are not justified within sweep of s. 153A of the Act.
On merits also, the impugned addition is not justified in the absence of any culpability established against the assessee company by some irrefutable evidence as noted above.
Revenue has failed to tie the contents of impugned entries discovered from third person with that of assessee co. The statutory presumption is thus not available in the instant case. The onus thus continues to lie at the doorstep of Revenue that the transactions/ entries were consummated by the assessee indeed. Such onus has not been discharged at all. The allegation leveled against the assessee co. is in the realm of bald. Coupled with this, simultaneous addition based on such entries in the hands of other entity militates against action of the revenue and erodes the very foundation of the impugned additions.
Substantial merit in the plea of the assessee on both counts namely lack of jurisdiction u/s 153A for making impugned additions dehors any incriminating material as well as additions being devoid of any merit in the absence of any credible corroboration that such entries unflinchingly relates to the assessee company in exclusion to other entities. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1280
Rejection of registration u/s. 12AB - rejecting application filed online by the assessee in Form 10AB u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(iii) - selecting the incorrect sub-clause during the online application process - HELD THAT:- In this case, the assessee by virtue of order of Ld.CIT(E) albeit dated 08.11.2023 was enjoying registration u/s. 12AA of the Act after enquiry from AY 2020-21 onwards until it was rejected by Ld.CIT(E) vide the impugned order dated 17.05.2024, which action of Ld CIT(E) cannot be countenanced, being not in consonance with the new scheme of registration after TOLA-2020.
Assessee-Trust being an old trust (before TOLA came into force) was legally entitled for registration u/s. 12AB(1)(a) for five (5) years; and because of inadvertent mistake of filling up for renewal under sub-clause (iii) instead of sub clause (i), the assessee’s right for re-registration u/s. 12AB of the Act for AY 2022-23 onwards cannot be denied, which action would offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees inter-alia that equals to be treated equally and therefore, a different treatment cannot be given to assessee-Trust, which will tantamount to discrimination.
Inadvertent mistake of the assessee clicking online for fresh registration under clause (iii) of sec.12(1)(ac) needs to be intervened and rectified; therefore, the assessee’s application for registration under sub-clause (iii) needs to be treated as if assessee has applied under clause (i) of sec.12A(1)(ac) and granted registration u/s. 12AB(a) for five assessment years from AY 2022-23 onwards.
Restore the assessee’s application for registration back to the file of the Ld.CIT(E) and direct him to process the application filed by assessee on 08-11-2023 in Form 10 as if filed u/s. 12A(1)(ac)(i). Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (1) TMI 1279
Income taxable in India or not - income from the provision of distance learning courses - AR submitted that the Authorised Training Centres (ATC) have been wrongly considered as agents of the assessee without appreciating the fact that the activities of the ATCs i.e. registration and training of students was carried out by them in their ordinary course of business in an independent capacity - relationship between the assessee viz. IATA, Canada and the ATCs was on principal to principal basis and there was no element of agency between them - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following coordinate bench case in assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 [2021 (6) TMI 2 - ITAT MUMBAI] we hold that addition made towards provision of distance learning courses by treating the ATCs as DAPE of the assessee is not sustainable and the AO is directed to delete the addition made in this regard.
Joining & annual fees collected towards IATA clearing house facility (ICH facility) and data processing charges - AR argued that the joining annual fee toward ICH facility is not taxable on the principle of mutualy - HELD THAT:- We notice that addition is made on the similar grounds that the principle of mutuality is not applicable for the charges for provision of Data Processing.
AO/DRP have relied on their own order of AY 2012-13 in this regard. On perusal of nature of charges, we are of the view that Data Processing charges are received towards services to airlines and agents using iiNet and weblink and therefore are similar to ICH facility fees.
As already held that the ICH facility fees is not taxable in India for the reason that the principle of mutuality is applicable as has been held by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for AY 2012-13. Therefore, applying the same ratio, we hold that the data processing charges which are similar in nature cannot also be taxed as income in India as attributable to Indian branches.
............
|
9911796707
