|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 1398 Records
-
2020 (10) TMI 1138
Smuggling - Baggage Rules - high value electronic items, like, Mobile phone sets of different reputed brands, Sandisk pen drives, USB flash drives, RAM cards, Laptops, Watches of foreign origin - Confiscation - Redemption Fine - Penalty - HELD THAT:- The appellants have imported goods in violation of baggage rules and have also accepted the same in their respective statements. However, it is to be seen as to whether the valuation adopted by the Department is in accordance with law and correct and as to whether the penalties were imposed in terms of Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The show-cause notice states that the value of the recovered goods has been ascertained on the basis of reference value found in different product websites as detailed in Annexure A. However, on-going through the said Annexure, it is seen that in fact there are 4 Annexures A, B, C and D, for the goods seized from the 4 appellants respectively. On-going through such Annexure, we do not find that though the Annexures contain details like description, Model, make, country of origin. However, the addresses of web sites from where the values are taken are not mentioned. Copies or screenshots of websites displaying the value of the products is not also made available. Similarly, there was no reasoning, for adoption of such values and the Rules under which the same is arrived at, has been given either in the SCN or OIO.
Confiscation - Redemption Fine - Penalty - HELD THAT:- The value adopted by the department is neither logical nor rational and nor on any legal basis. Under the circumstances, we find that while holding that the good are liable for confiscation and the appellants are liable for penalty under Section 112(b), the request for reducing the penalties can be accepted. Accordingly, the redemption fines and personal penalties imposed on the appellants is reduced.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1137
EPCG Scheme - non-fulfilment of export obligation - Customs Notification No.64/2008-C.E., dated 09.05.2008 - HELD THAT:- Since the appellant submits that it had already achieved the export obligation against the goods imported by it, we are of the view that the adjudged demands cannot be confirmed on the appellant on the ground of non-fulfilment of the export obligation - However, since the facts regarding achievement of export obligation are required to be examined at the original stage, the matter should be remanded to the original authority for verification of the documentary evidences for a proper satisfaction of the fact that the export obligation in respect of the imports made under EPCG licence had already been achieved by the appellant.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1136
Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Smuggling Gold - applicant would submit that there is no embargo under the Customs Act from seeking pre-arrest bail - Section 108 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- An offence under the Customs Act is undoubtedly an economic offence of grave nature and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in a number of cases, including in P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it was held that power under Section 438 Cr.PC being an extraordinary remedy has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences, and that economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society.
The applicant has not yet been made an accused. But he apprehends arrest. There are no sufficient material to show that he will be arrested. Merely because he was questioned for 60 hours by the Customs Department does not indicate that he is intended to be made an accused - The fact that the applicant was in constant contact with one of the prime witness, namely Swapna Suresh, and that he had even volunteered to help her by contacting his Chartered Accountant and asking him to assist her in managing her finances indicates that there is a fair possibility that applicant knew about the involvement of Swapna Suersh in the alleged smuggling activity.
The power of the Customs Department to question the applicant under Section 108 cannot be curtailed by granting anticipatory bail. The relief sought for is undoubtedly premature - the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail - Bail application dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1135
Principles of Natural Justice - Rejection of application filed under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 (SVLDRS) - rejection of application without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs had conveyed to all the departmental heads that the scheme is a bold endeavour to unload the baggage relating to the legacy taxes, namely, central excise and service tax which have been subsumed under GST and to allow business to make a new beginning and to focus entirely on GST. It was emphasized that all officers and staff should partner with trade and industry to make the scheme a grand success. It was highlighted that dispute resolution and amnesty are the two components of this scheme. The dispute resolution component is aimed at liquidating the legacy cases whereas the amnesty component gives an opportunity to those who have failed to correctly discharge their tax liability to pay the tax dues.
On the one hand there is a letter of respondent No.3 to the petitioner quantifying the service tax liability for the period 1st April, 2016 to 31st March, 2017 at ₹ 47,44,937.00 which quantification is before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019 and on the other hand for the second period i.e. from 1st April, 2017 to 30th June, 2017 there is a letter dated 18th June, 2019 of the petitioner addressed to respondent No.3 admitting service tax liability for an amount of ₹ 10,74,011.00 which again is before the cut off date of 30th June, 2019. Thus, petitioner’s tax dues were quantified on or before 30th June, 2019 - there are no hesitation to hold that petitioner was eligible to file the application (declaration) as per the scheme under the category of enquiry or investigation or audit whose tax dues stood quantified on or before 30th June, 2019.
Though the scheme has the twin objectives of liquidation of past disputes pertaining to central excise and service tax on the one hand and disclosure of unpaid taxes on the other hand, the primary focus as succinctly put across by the Hon’ble Finance Minister in her budget speech is to unload the baggage of pending litigations in respect of service tax and central excise from pre-GST regime so that the business can move on. This was also the view expressed by the Board in the circular dated 27th August, 2019 wherein all the officers and staff working under the Board were called upon to partner with trade and industry to make the scheme a grand success which in turn will enable the administrative machinery to fully focus in the smooth implementation of GST. This is the broad picture which the officials must have in mind while considering an application (declaration) seeking amnesty under the scheme.
The rejection of the application (declaration) of the Petitioner under the scheme communicated vide email dated 27th January, 2020 is not justified - petition allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1134
Jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - case in the plaint is that on account of absence of the mandatory notice under S. 286 of the Companies Act, 1956, being served on the petitioner / plaintiff, the meeting convened by the Board of Directors and the so called board resolution dated 2nd February, 2014 is void - Time Limitation.
HELD THAT:- Although the respondents herein had raised a ground of limitation in respect of the challenge to the sale-deed of the year 2014 on the basis of S. 242 (2) (g) of the Companies Act, 2013, at this stage it does not appear that the said ground has been accepted by the NCLT. Quite to the contrary, the company petition is admitted, and as noticed earlier the NCLT has also held that if ultimately the transaction is held to be ultra vires, consequential reliefs can be granted.
Jurisdiction of the civil court - HELD THAT:- It is a settled position of law that under S. 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the civil court can entertain and try all suits of a civil nature, except any suits of which, the cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. It is now well settled that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be lightly inferred in view of the plenary jurisdiction conferred on the civil court under S. 9 of the CPC and any plea, seeking exclusion of such jurisdiction, has to be jealously guarded. However, at the same time a legal provision creating a bar of jurisdiction of the civil court, are required to be strictly interpreted and given effect to. In other words, although the exclusion of jurisdiction, cannot be lightly inferred, wherever there is a provision excluding such jurisdiction, either expressly or by necessary implication, the same has to be given effect to in its letter and spirit.
The writ petition is without any merits and is dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1133
CENVAT Credit - input services - outward transportation of its finished goods, i.e. biscuits, which were transported up to the customers’ premises - place of removal - period from January, 2005 to September, 2007 - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM VERSUS M/S. VASAVADATTA CEMENTS LTD. [2018 (3) TMI 993 - SUPREME COURT]. By this judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that that the assessee is legally eligible to avail credit on outward transportation availed from place of removal upto a certain point, whether it is a depot or customer’s premises.
In the instant case, the availment of credit on outward transportation from factory gate to customer’s place pertains to period prior to April 2008 i.e. prior to period when the definition of input service was amended - Since the credit eligibility finally stands decided by the Apex Court in favour of assessee, the impugned order is liable to be sustained.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1132
Exemption from GST - mobility devices - Attorney General states that there could be no objection to the petitioner pursuing a representation.
HELD THAT:- List the Writ Petition for final disposal, in March 2021.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1131
Application for release of seized goods which are perishable in nature - HELD THAT:- An application dated 29th September, 2020 has been preferred by the writ applicants addressed to the Superintendent, office of the Commisisoner of Cetral GST, Subhanpura, Vadodara under Section 67(6) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 for provisional release of 7312 bags weighing 252,120 kg - At this point of time, we are not inclined to go into the issue with regard to the legality and validity of the action initiated by the authority under the provisions of the Act.
Having regard to the fact that the goods seized are perishable in nature, the authority concerned are directed to look into the application dated 29th September, 2020, annexed at page-83A and pass appropriate order within a period of one week from today in accordance with law - application disposed off.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1130
Maintainability of petition - absence of appropriate forum - absence of constitution of Tribunal under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In the absence of constitution of Tribunal under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 the petitioners have no other alternative remedy but to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution - Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the same.
This writ petition be connected with Writ Tax No. 1262 of 2019 and shall be listed on the date fixed in the said case.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1129
Valuation - Sale of vehicles - Demand of differential amount of token tax/fees of the vehicles sold - period from 01.08.2019 to 26.11.2019 - liability of seller to pay such amount - HELD THAT:- As per Section 4 of the J&K Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957, the liability to pay the tax is on the registered owner or the person who has the possession of the vehicle and not that of the seller of the vehicle.
The registration of the vehicle or payment of token tax was not rejected on the Portal as for all the vehicles registration certificates were issued. All of a sudden, the petitioner received a communication dated 22.06.2020, from the Transport Department directing it to deposit differential amount of token tax of the vehicles sold after issuance of SRO 492 dated 01.08.2019. It was the difference of tax on the amount of GST levied on sale of vehicle, on which the token tax was not charged earlier. It was with reference to the clarification issued by the Transport Department on 26.11.2019, which provided that the token tax/ road tax is to be levied on the aggregate cost of the vehicle which includes basic cost plus GST - It could not be disputed that the liability to pay the aforesaid tax is on the buyer of the vehicle who has to utilize the same on the public roads. The fault cannot be attributed to the petitioner for the reason that even the invoice was to be generated from the Vahaan Portal as per the Government Order dated 12.10.2017.
Any clarification issued by the department to a notification cannot have retrospective effect - the department issued the clarification on 26.11.2019. It is not in dispute that after the issuance of the aforesaid clarification the token tax is being calculated on the value of the vehicle including the amount of GST.
The impugned notices directing the petitioner to deposit the differential amount of tax for the period from 03.08.2019 to 26.11.2019, are set aside - petition allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1128
Detention of goods and vehicle - validity of EWB - the vehicle no. in the Part B of the EWB not updated - contravention of Rule 138(5) of CGST/SGST Rules, 2017 - Circular No. 64/38/2018, dated 14-9-2018 - HELD THAT:- It appears that there is no dispute regarding quantity of goods and further all concerns documents were placed before the proper officer. It is a fact that the E-way Bill for the material in question was generated at 05:52 pm on 1-11-2018 and further updated on 5-11-2018 at 06:38 pm in which all relevant detail were entered. Due to break down of material carrying vehicle the material were transhipped to another vehicle. The E-way Bill of the consignment which was produced before the proper officer pertains to the previous vehicle. The only mistake the E-way Bill part-B was that the number of the vehicle in which the material was transhipped had not been entered at the time of inspection of the vehicle. The appellant updated the E-way Bill and the number of the second vehicle was updated in the part-B of the E-way Bill at 11:52 am dated 6-11-2018. Despite the updation of the part-B of EWB the Ld. Respondent detained the vehicle and imposed tax/penalty to the tune of ₹ 16,28,23,728/-.
As there is no doubt that the taxpayer has made procedural lapse and violated the provisions of the CGST/HPGST Act, 2017 and HPGST Rules 138(10) which says as “Provided further that where, under circumstances of an exceptional nature, including transshipment, the goods cannot be transported within validity period of E-way Bill, the transporter may extend the validity period after uploading the detail in part B of the FORM GST EWB-01, if required”. Therefore appellant should have updated the part 8 of EWB before resuming his journey further. So keeping in view the above facts the appellant is liable to pay minor penalty.
The tax and penalty deposited by the appellant under Section 129(3) may be refunded and a penalty of Rs. Ten Thousand only is imposed on the taxpayer under Section 122(xiv) of the Act - appeal allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1127
Rejection of books of accounts - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the two observations made by the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be justifiable reasons to reject the books of accounts. Further, in case where the books of accounts are rejected u/s 145(3) then the assessment ought to have been completed u/s 144 of the Act. Section 144 provides for best judgment method of assessment by Assessing Officer and to complete the assessment u/s 144(1), the Assessing Officer has to afford an opportunity to the assessee to that extent.
Since, the amounts have been duly reflected in the books of accounts and the reasons specified by the Assessing Officer are not justifiable and since the assessment has not been completed following the due procedure as mentioned u/s 144, we hereby hold that no addition in the case of the assessee is called for.
Addition u/s.69A r/w Sec. 115BBE - unexplained cash found during search - search and seizure operation u/s 132 - Old currency notes which had zero intrinsic value as on the date of operation of locker No. 487 - HELD THAT:- The amount has been added as unexplained money u/s 69 A for the assessment year 2017-18. Hence, it needs to be considered as to whether for the period between 01.04.2016 to 25.04.2016, possession of these notes have any intrinsic value or not. On this issue, we are guided by the judgment of Hon’ ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs Andhra Pradesh Yarns Combines Pvt. Ltd. [2006 (1) TMI 66 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]
Locker was last operated on 29.10.2015. The fact that the locker has not been operated in the assessment year 2017 -18 is before the revenue authorities. Hence, the amount deemed to have been undisclosed income for the assessment year 2016-17 whereas the amount has been brought to tax for the assessment year 2017 -18. Hence, the addition made in the AY 2017-18 cannot be upheld. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1126
Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - disallowance made u/s.40A(3) - HELD THAT:- Assessee filed particulars involving claim u/s.40A(3) but however AO could not find the same as acceptable and proceeded to make disallowance u/s.40A(3) - penalty could not be levied on such disallowance made u/s.40A(3) of the Act only on the basis that the assessee made wrong claim. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Penalty imposed on account of addition made u/s.69C - HELD THAT:- We find nothing on record showing that the assessee challenged the same before the Appellate Forum and therefore, taking into consideration the submissions of the Ld. DR, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in confirming the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance made u/s.69C - Decided against assessee.
Penalty levied on disallowance made u/s.68 - HELD THAT:- We find no cogent evidences before us as rightly pointed by the Ld. DR supporting the contentions of assessee and showing the addition has been deleted in the quantum proceedings. Therefore, we find no infirmity with the findings of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act involving the disallowance made u/s.68 - Decided against assessee.
Penalty imposed on disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) - violation of deduction of TDS on the payment made on account of TDR/Land cost - HELD THAT:- AO initiated penalty proceedings for failure to deduct TDS which itself clearly shows that the there were details regarding the payment involving TDR/land cost in the assessment proceedings which does not any way constitute furnishing of inaccurate particulars nor concealment of income. A mere disallowance as rightly contended by the assessee before the CIT(A) does not attract imposition of penalty. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty imposed against disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1125
Deduction u/s 80I/80IA - Lean gas is manufactured/ produced only at the two LPG Plants at Vaghodia (Gujarat) and Vijaipur (MP) and not at various customer terminals, as claimed by the appellant - as per CIT-A activities undertaken by the appellant at its customer terminals did not constitute “manufacture or production of any article or thing” - HELD THAT:- Since deduction is admissible for specified years, as a consequence of the order of the CIT(A), deduction in respect of profits derived from processed Lean Gas shall be considered from the year of setting up of the LPG Plant and not the relevant customer terminal at which such processed Lean Gas is supplied to the customer. Extensive processing activities undertaken by the assessee at the customer terminals to make lean gas and natural gas marketable and fit for use, clearly constitute “manufacture”.
The contention of the assessee is that the claim of deduction made by the assessee under section 80I/80IA/ 80HH are genuine as the similar claims have been allowed in the earlier years by the revenue. Deduction allowed in earlier years cannot be denied in subsequent years. Since deduction under section 80IA of the Act in respect to profit derived from eligible units has been allowed by Revenue till assessment year 1995-96, the same cannot be denied subsequently. AR made reference to the decision of the CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 1994-95.
CIT(A) has not taken into account the revenue’s stand in the earlier years and deviated from the same without any substantial reasons or evidence on record. Thus, the claim of deduction made by the assessee under section 80I/80IA/ 80HH are genuine in this year as well - Decided in favour of assessee.
Misc. Income and Interest income eligible for deduction u/s 80IA, 80I and 80HH - HELD THAT:- Assessee has produced all the relevant evidence as regards to how the scrap sale is derived from the industrial undertaking. As regards to interest on fixed deposits, various decisions of the Hon’ble High Court categorically held that the deduction in respect of interest on fixed deposits under Section 80IA is allowable. The revenue has not pointed out as to why the same should be denied to the assessee. The case laws given by the Revenue in fact reiterate the stand of the assessee. Hence, it is pertinent to remand back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer and we direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction in respect of interest on fixed deposits under Section 80IA of the Act. So far as interest on employees’ loans and advances is concerned, the interest on loan provided to employees in our opinion is inextricably linked to the business of the assessee and constitutes business income eligible for deduction. As regards to interest on customer outstanding is profit derived from eligible undertakings and entitled for deduction under Section 80IA/80I, in department’s appeal, the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by various decisions of High Court. As regards to miscellaneous income, the said income is inextricably linked to and have first degree nexus with the profits and gains of the eligible undertaking and the same were eligible for deduction.
Interest transferred to “expenditure during construction” liable to be excluded from eligible profits - HELD THAT:- The aforesaid issue of capitalization has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case vide order dated 22.01.2010 for the A.Y. 1997-98. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Bokaro Steel [1998 (12) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] and Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills [1999 (4) TMI 7 - SC ORDER]. CIT(A) should have directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the aforesaid interest and miscellaneous income capitalized while excluding the same from the eligible profits which the CIT(A) failed to do so. Therefore, we are remanding back this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to reduce the aforesaid interest and miscellaneous income capitalized while excluding the same from the eligible profits. Ground of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Horticulture expenses disallowance - HELD THAT:- The horticulture expenses on planting of trees, maintenance of lawns and areas in the close vicinity of the offices/ plants of the assessee in accordance with the mandate of the Government and the assessee has to comply with the government regulations for environmental cause. Thus, the CIT(A) has given a categorical finding while allowing these expenses. Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Deferred revenue expenditure - HELD THAT:- Expenditure incurred on market survey to assess the degree and extent of utilization of additional ethylene proposed to be produced by the assessee is related to the business related. Thus, revenue expenditure incurred by an existing business for expansion or setting up of new unit in the same business is allowable business deduction. Therefore, the CIT(A) rightly allowed the said expenditure.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1124
Benefit of Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme ('VVS Scheme') - Right of the revenue - Disposal of appeal since application has been filed by the assessee but Designated Authority has not accepted the declaration till date - HELD THAT:- Although the Declaration in Form 1 in accordance with Section 4 has been filed by the assessee company, however, the Designated Authority has not yet granted the Certificate in Form 3 under Section 5 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 accepting the said declaration and determining the tax arrears to be paid by the assessee. Assessee’s counsel has further mentioned in her letter dated 19.10.2020 that the captioned appeals would be withdrawn once the Designated Authority accepts the declaration filed by the assessee issues Form 3 under section 5 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
Appeals of the Revenue should be disposed of with the liberty to the Department that if the Department does not issue Form No. 3 to the Assessee, then the Department is at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application for recalling this order - Both the Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed with liberty to file Misc. Application for recalling the order if Form No. 3 of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 is not issued to the Assessee.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1123
Exemption u/s 11 - denying the registration u/s 12AA - CIT-E had denied the registration solely on the ground that the appellant had not undertaken any charitable activities pursuant to objects on which it was set up activities of the trust in the last three financial years - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of the CIT(Exemption) that the objects of the appellant society are not charitable in nature. The reasoning of the CIT (Exemption) is not tenable under the law in view of the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ananda Social and Educational Trust [2020 (2) TMI 1293 - SUPREME COURT]
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Ananda Social and Educational Trust [2020 (2) TMI 1293 - SUPREME COURT] held that merely because the trust has not spent any amount of its income for charitable activities and the fact that the trust has not spent any amount of income for charitable purpose does not amount to carrying on the activities contrary to its objects. In the light of legal position discussed supra, the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
The submission of the ld. CIT-DR the matter be remanded to Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for fresh examination cannot be acceded to for the reason that it amounts to ordering fresh enquiry which is not permissible under the law - we direct the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) to grant registration of the appellant trust u/s 12AA of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1122
Deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd. [2017 (8) TMI 536 - SUPREME COURT] held that in order to do the business of a cooperative bank, it is imperative to have a licence from the Reserve Bank of India. It can therefore be said that a co-operative society which does not possess a license from RBI cannot be equated to a co-operative Bank, even though it might indulge in the business of banking.
Co-operative Societies carrying on business of banking are therefore entitled to claim deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i). The CIT(A)’s order was passed prior to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Citizens Co-operative Society Ltd., (supra) and hence the CIT(A) did not have the benefit of looking into the same. Appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1121
TDS u/s 194A - Non-deduction of TDS on interest paid to the members - disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT:- As decided in KODUNGALLUR TOWN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. [2018 (5) TMI 1794 - ITAT COCHIN] and KADACHIRA SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD [2013 (2) TMI 208 - ITAT COCHIN] assessee are not cooperative society but co-operative bank carrying on banking business with the approval of the Reserve Bank of India and as such, the assessee are not liable to deduct TDS under section 194A of the I.T. Act on the interest paid to its own members.
Denying the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - HELD THAT:- In the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2019 (3) TMI 1580 - KERALA HIGH COURT] we are of the view that there should be fresh examination by the AO as regards the nature of each loan disbursement and purpose for which it has been disbursed, i.e., whether it for agricultural purpose or not.
A.O. shall list out the instances where loans have been disbursed for non-agricultural purposes etc. and accordingly conclude that the assessees’ activities are not in compliance with the activities of primary agricultural credit society functioning under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, before denying the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2). The issue raised in these appeals is restored to the files of the AO. AO shall examine the activities of the assessee-societies - Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1120
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - assessee were essentially doing the business of banking, and therefore, in view of insertion of section 80P(4) with effect from 01.04.2007, the assessee will not be entitled to deduction u/s 80P - HELD THAT:- In the case of The Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2019 (3) TMI 1580 - KERALA HIGH COURT] we are of the view that there should be fresh examination by the Assessing Officer as regards the nature of each loan disbursement and purpose for which it has been disbursed, i.e., whether it for agricultural purpose or not.
A.O. shall list out the instances where loans have been disbursed for non-agricultural purposes etc. and accordingly conclude that the assessees’ activities are not in compliance with the activities of primary agricultural credit society functioning under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, before denying the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2). The issue raised in these appeals is restored to the files of the AO. AO shall examine the activities of the assessee-societies - Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1119
Employees contribution received from its employees towards PF/ESI - deposited with PF/ESI authorities beyond the time stipulated under the relevant PF/ESI Act but were deposited within the time stipulated for filing of return of income under the provisions of Section 139(1) - HELD THAT:- As relying on M/S. UNIFAC MANAGEMENT SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [2019 (1) TMI 1787 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and M/S. REPCO HOME FINANCE PVT. LTD. [2020 (6) TMI 470 - ITAT CHENNAI] we decide the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the employee contribution towards PF/ESI received by assessee from its employees which was deposited beyond the due date as prescribed under the relevant statute governing PF/ESI but were deposited within the due date prescribed for filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the 1961 Act shall be allowed as deduction while computing income of the assesse under Chapter IV-D of the 1961 Act under the head ‘Profits and Gains from Business or Profession’. - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
